LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Gl  FT    OF 


Class 


UNION  CAUSE  IN   KENTUCKY 


Captain  Thomas  Speed 
From  a  photograph 


THE  UNION  CAUSE 
IN  KENTUCKY 


1860-1865 


BY 

CAPTAIN  THOMAS  SPEED 

Adjutant  isth  Kentucky  Infantry  and  Veteran  Infantry  Vols.  1861-65 

Member   of  the   American    Historical   Association 

Author  of   "The  Wilderness  Road,"  etc. 


OF  TH!  -•>, 

^    UNIVERSITY    j) 


- 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

NEW    YORK    AND    LONDON 

Umfcfcerbocfeer  press 

1907 


X 


COPYRIGHT,  1907 

BY 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 


Cbc  Tftnicfcerbocfcet  press  mew  fflocft 


A  FOREWORD  BY  JUSTICE  HARLAN 

Published  by  permission  of  the  writer 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  October  27,  1904. 

DEAR  CAPTAIN  SPEED  : 

I  have  just  concluded  my  final  examination  of  the 
several  articles  prepared  by  you  under  the  general  title 
of  "The  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky."  They  are  to  be 
commended  for  the  fairness  and  fulness  with  which  the 
facts  are  stated,  as  well  as  for  the  genuine  patriotic  spirit 
pervading  them  all.  The  survivors  of  the  struggle  of  1861 
in  Kentucky,  and  equally  their  descendants,  will  wish 
these  articles  published  in  book  form,  and  that  the  book 
shall  go  into  every  library  in  the  country.  And  they 
will,  I  am  sure,  feel  grateful  to  you  for  having,  after 
patient  investigation  and  great  labor,  brought  together 
the  facts  connected  with  the  defeat  by  the  Kentucky 
Unionists  of  the  attempt  to  ally  our  old  State  with  the 
Southern  Confederacy. 

No  more  valuable  services  were  performed  in  the 
struggle  to  preserve  the  Union  than  were  performed  by 
the  Union  men  of  Kentucky.  I  make  this  statement 
without  the  slightest  doubt  of  its  accuracy.  The  country 
at  large  never  has  had  an  adequate  conception  of  the 
sacrifices  made  and  the  work  done  by  the  Union  men  of 
the  Border  Slave  States.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
if  the  people  of  those  States  had  been  as  favorable  to 
secession  as  were  the  people  of  the  Cotton  States,  it 
would,  most  probably,  have  been  impossible  to  prevent 


1 63883 


vi  A  Foreword  by  Justice  Harlan 

the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  No  one,  after  reading 
what  you  have  written — certainly  no  one  familiar  with 
the  situation  as  it  was  at  the  commencement  of  the  seces 
sion  movement — will  fail  to  recognize  the  truth  of  this 
view.  And  yet  a  strenuous  effort  was  made,  after  the 
close  of  the  war,  to  minimize  the  work  of  the  Unionists 
of  the  Border  States,  and  to  create  the  impression  that 
what  they  did  was  not  worth  remembering,  nor  of  any 
particular  value  to  the  country.  I  confidently  assert 
that,  after  the  flag  was  fired  on  at  Sumter,  a  large  major 
ity  of  the  people  of  Kentucky  were  at  all  times  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  Union  and  unalterably  opposed  to  its 
disruption  by  secession.  Kentucky  was  the  first-born  of 
the  Union,  and,  despite  the  strong  ties  of  kinship  and 
business  between  them  and  the  friends  of  secession,  a 
large  majority  of  its  people  held  steadily  to  the  view  that 
if  the  Union  ship  went  down,  our  State  must  be  the  last 
to  desert  it.  That  was  the  spirit  in  which  the  Kentucky 
Unionists  rallied  to  the  standard  of  the  country  in  1861. 
While  some  did  not  approve,  indeed  openly  disapproved, 
many  things  done  in  the  course  of  the  war  which  were 
supposed  injuriously  to  affect  the  institution  of  slavery, 
the  Kentucky  Unionists,  all  of  them,  clung  unfalteringly 
to  the  idea  that  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  was  not  a 
remedy  for  any  evil,  and  that,  cost  what  it  might  in  men 
and  money,  the  national  authority,  as  derived  from  the 
Constitution,  must  be  reinstated  over  every  foot  of 
American  soil.  To  say  nothing  of  the  colored  men  in 
Kentucky  who  were  mustered  into  the  service  of  the 
United  States  towards  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  it  is 
safe  to  say  that  the  white  men  in  Kentucky  who  openly 
and  actively  sided  with  the  Union  cause,  and  wore  the 
uniform  of  Union  soldiers,  outnumbered,  at  least  twice 
(I  think  three  times),  those  who  openly  and  actively 
sided  with  the  Confederate  cause. 

I  observe  that  you  call  attention  to  certain  statements 


A  Foreword  by  Justice  Harlan         vii 

made  after  the  war  in  a  brief  History  of  Kentucky  as  one 
of  the  American  Commonwealths.  Those  statements 
were  to  the  following  effect :  "The  Confederacy  received 
the  youth  and  strength  from  the  richest  part  of  the  Ken 
tucky  soil.  The  so-called  Blue  Grass  soil  sent  the  greater 
part  of  its  men  of  the  richer  families  into  the  Confederate 
army,  while  the  Union  troops,  though  from  all  parts  of 
the  State,  came  in  greatest  abundance  from  those  who 
dwelt  on  thinner  soils.  .  .  .  The  Kentucky  troops 
in  the  Confederate  army  being  fewer  in  number,  and 
from  the  richer  part  of  the  State,  were,  as  a  whole,  a 
finer  body  of  men  than  the  Federal  troops  from  the 
Commonwealth." 

These  statements  are  akin  to  those  sometimes  heard  in 
1 86 1,  that  the  secession  movement  in  Kentucky  had  the 
approval  of  the  "gentlemen"  and  holders  of  property  in 
that  Commonwealth ;  that,  in  the  main,  the  Union  cause 
had  the  support  only  of  those  who  had  no  special  social 
standing  and  were  not  identified  with  the  State  by  own 
ership  of  property  to  any  great  extent.  Those  who  then 
lived  in  Kentucky  and  had  a  knowledge  of  its  history 
and  people  are  aware  how  reckless  were  and  are  all  such 
statements.  The  Union  leaders  in  Kentucky  whose 
names  are  given  in  your  book,  and  many  others  who 
might  be  named,  constituted  a  body  of  men  of  whom  it 
may  justly  be  stated  that,  in  respect  of  social  standing, 
family  history,  character,  education,  and  intellectual 
power,  they  could  be  favorably  compared  with  any  like 
number  of  men  living  at  any  time  in  any  State  of  the 
Union.  Many  of  them  were  born  or  were  reared  in 
counties  popularly  known  as  Blue  Grass  counties,  while 
the  others  were,  as  Lincoln  was,  born  or  reared  on 
"thinner  soils."  But,  whatever  the  nature  of  the  soil  on 
which  they  were  born  or  reared,  they  were  of  noble 
nature,  gentlemen  in  the  best  sense  of  that  word,  and 
of  the  highest  social  position.  No  intimation  to  the 


viii         A  Foreword  by  Justice  Harlan 

contrary  will  be  accepted  as  true  or  just  by  any  one  who 
knew  Kentucky  and  the  Kentucky  people  of  1861. 

The  same  observations  may  be  made  in  respect  of  the 
officers  and  soldiers  who  went  into  the  Union  army  from 
Kentucky.  A  very  large  part — I  will  not  say  a  majority 
— of  the  Kentucky  Union  officers  and  soldiers  came  from 
counties  which,  by  reason  of  the  richness  of  their  soil, 
might  be  called  Blue  Grass  counties — such  as  the  counties 
of  Jefferson,  Shelby,  Mason,  Fleming,  Fayette,  Bourbon, 
Woodford,  Scott,  Harrison,  Henry,  Washington,  Nelson, 
Marion,  Jessamine,  Mercer,  Boyle,  Clarke,  Madison, 
Garrard,  Warren,  Logan,  Christian,  Barren,  Todd,  and 
Daviess.  Undoubtedly  the  Confederate  officers  who 
went  from  Kentucky  were  men  of  high  character  and  won 
distinction  as  commanders  of  troops.  But  they  were  of 
no  higher  character,  certainly  did  not  possess  more  skill, 
and  did  not  win  more  renown  than  those  who  commanded 
Kentucky  Union  troops.  The  fact  is,  the  Kentucky 
Union  officers  and  soldiers  and  the  Kentucky  Confederate 
officers  and  soldiers  were,  as  bodies  of  men,  whether 
born  on  Blue  Grass  soil  or  on* 'thinner  soils,"  the  peers, 
in  all  respects,  of  the  officers  or  soldiers  of  any  army  ever 
organized.  As  Kentuckians,  we  should  be  proud  of  the 
reputation  both  sides  won  in  the  Civil  War  for  courage 
and  fidelity  to  the  cause  each  espoused. 

You  have  attempted  to  bring  out  the  truth  and  the 
whole  truth  as  to  the  contest  of  1861  in  Kentucky.  And 
you  have  succeeded  most  admirably.  By  all  means,  my 
dear  Captain,  put  what  you  have  said  in  book  form. 

Yours  truly, 

JOHN  M.  HARLAN. 

Capt.  THOMAS  SPEED, 

LOUISVILLE,  KENTUCKY. 


PREFACE 

IT  is  the  purpose  of  the  author  of  this  book  to  give  a 
narrative  of  the  struggle  of  the  Union  men  in  the 
State  of  Kentucky  to  hold  their  State  in  the  Union, 
when  other  States  were  seceding  and  strenuous  efforts 
were  made  to  carry  Kentucky  into  the  Southern  Confed 
eracy  ;  also  to  show  what  services  were  rendered  by  the 
Union  soldiers  of  Kentucky  in  the  Civil  War.  It  is  due 
to  the  Kentucky  Unionists  that  such  a  narrative  should 
be  prepared  and  published.  They  performed  a  great 
work  in  their  day  for  the  salvation  and  perpetuity  of  our 
national  Union,  which  was  not  fully  understood  or  appre 
ciated  by  many  even  at  the  time,  and  no  effort  has  ever 
been  made  to  create  a  better  understanding. 

Histories  of  Kentucky  have  been  written  since  the 
war,  but  in  them  injustice  is  done  to  the  Kentucky 
Unionists  both  negatively  and  positively.  They  not 
only  fail  to  recount  matters  richly  deserving  mention,  but 
contain  many  misrepresentations. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  after  the  Union  was 
restored  the  Union  men  of  Kentucky  refrained  from 
writing  about  the  events  of  the  past.  They  were  satisfied 
with  the  result.  That  was  enough.  They  did  not  desire 
to  recall  and  dwell  upon  the  experiences  through  which 
they  had  passed.  Therefore  the  story  of  their  services 
has  remained  untold  except  in  so  far  as  it  is  found  em 
bedded  in  the  records  of  the  war  and  scattered  through 
many  volumes,  documents,  and  current  publications  of  all 
descriptions,  practically  inaccessible  to  the  general  reader. 


x  Preface 

Upon  this  point  one  of  the  most  distinguished  citizens 
of  Kentucky  has  remarked  that 

"  the  manner  in  which  the  Kentucky  Unionists  relegated  the 
war  into  the  past,  immediately  upon  its  close,  is  nothing  less 
than  a  phenomenon.  Nothing  like  it  can  be  found  in  any 
history.  When  the  great  fact  that  the  Union  was  preserved 
became  a  certainty,  all  the  Union  element  in  Kentucky,  which 
preponderated  during  the  conflict,  controlling  the  State  and 
serving  magnificently  on  the  field,  at  once  ceased  to  talk  or 
think  of  the  war,  and  became  from  that  time  voiceless.  They 
have  not  only  refrained  from  heralding  their  own  services,  but 
have  also  refrained  from  censure  of  those  who  antagonized 
them." 

In  a  certain  sense  the  history  of  the  war  was  written  as 
it  progressed.  Its  true  history  is  found  in  the  documents 
of  the  period,  and  to  these  original  sources  of  information 
all  should  go  who  desire  to  know  the  exact  facts.  But 
the  documents  of  the  period  are  not  accessible  to  all,  and 
to  search  for  them  requires  far  more  time  and  labor  than 
can  be  given  by  general  readers.  In  order  that  the  facts 
they  contain  may  be  popularly  known,  it  is  the  province 
of  the  historian  to  gather  them  together  and  cause  them 
to  tell  their  story  in  readable  form. 

Much  of  the  writing  about  the  events  of  the  Civil  War 
rather  ignores  the  record-facts,  instead  of  using  them. 
Many  writers  have  endeavored  to  make  history,  rather 
than  to  compile  it  from  authoritative  sources.  Impres 
sions  received  from  having  lived  through  the  war  period, 
either  of  the  writer  himself  or  of  individuals  who  narrate 
their  impressions  to  him,  are  written  down,  instead  of 
searching  out  what  was  written  down  at  the  time  by  the 
actors  themselves,  Thus  erroneous  views  are  often  pre 
sented.  Absolute  accuracy  is  not  to  be  expected  in 
recounting  the  events  of  the  past,  but  in  telling  the  story 
of  the  Civil  War,  or  any  particular  feature  of  it,  the  best 
material  to  be  found  is  that  which  was  written  at  the 
time.  It  is  common  for  individual  participants  to  de- 


Preface  xi 

scribe  orally  the  campaigns  and  battles  through  which 
they  passed.  In  every  such  instance,  if  the  movements 
were  of  any  magnitude,  the  relator  is  certain  to  fall  into 
error,  unless  he  has  studied  the  case  as  it  is  found  in  the 
records.  No  one  person  can  know  much  of  a  large  battle 
from  what  came  within  the  range  of  his  own  vision,  and 
he  is  apt  to  magnify  what  he  actually  saw,  and  to  mini 
mize  what  he  did  not  see.  But  the  reports  of  regimental 
commanders  and  brigade  commanders  and  commanders  of 
divisions  and  corps,  together  with  the  reports  of  the  offi 
cers  in  chief  command,  will  enable  the  reader  to  arrive  at 
a  clear  and  distinct  idea  of  all  that  occurred. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  conduct  of  civil  affairs.  The 
speeches  and  writings  of  public  men — recognized  leaders 
and  official  characters — show  their  sentiments  and  posi 
tions  far  better  than  the  statements  of  misinformed  or 
biassed  persons,  who  may  recount  impressions  instead  of 
facts.  Many  accounts  have  been  written  to  sustain  a 
theory,  or  in  support  of  one  side  or  the  other  of  a  contro 
versy.  Such  writing  may  be  graphic  and  the  work  of 
one  who  was  a  participant,  but,  unless  it  is  based  upon 
the  record-facts,  it  is  apt  to  be  misleading. 

A  complete  history  of  the  events  in  the  State  of  Ken 
tucky,  civil  and  military,  might  be  written  from  the 
records.  Such  a  history  would  give  account  of  the  good 
and  the  bad  on  both  sides.  So,  also,  the  history  of  any 
feature  of  the  war  time  in  Kentucky  might  be  written — 
as,  for  instance,  the  civil  history,  irrespective  of  the  mili 
tary,  or  vice  versa;  or  an  account  might  be  given  of  the 
Federal  troops  alone,  or  of  the  Confederate  troops  alone, 
but  in  any  such  writing  the  truth  is  best  found  in  the 
records  of  the  period. 

It  is  from  documentary  sources  the  present  writer  will 
draw  the  facts  pertaining  to  the  Union  cause  in  Kentucky 
during  the  war.  While  he  lived  through  that  period  and 
was  a  participant,  to  some  extent,  in  many  events  con- 


xii  Preface 

nected  with  the  war,  it  is  not  on  that  account  that  the 
history  is  proposed.  What  is  here  recorded  is  deduced 
from  an  examination  of  the  record-sources  of  information. 

The  writer  desires  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  such  a 
treatise  as  this  is  really  called  for.  Much  has  been  writ 
ten  upon  the  other  side.  Various  volumes  stand  upon 
the  shelves  of  the  libraries  written  from  the  opposite 
standpoint,  which  celebrate  the  services  and  exploits  of 
those  Kentuckians  who  went  into  the  Confederacy,  and 
miserably  misrepresent  the  Kentucky  Unionists,  but  no 
volume  has  been  prepared  to  show  what  was,  in  truth, 
done  and  endured  and  accomplished  by  these  Kentucky 
Unionists.  It  is  true  a  volume  has  been  published  giv 
ing  brief  accounts  of  the  Union  regiments  of  Kentucky, 
but  this  touches  but  lightly  the  civil  struggles  of  the  war 
period. 

In  view,  therefore,  of  the  fact  that  the  Southern  side 
is  already  represented  in  the  libraries,  and  that  the 
Union  side  is  not,  it  is  believed  that  there  is  a  demand  for 
the  present  work. 

The  writer  believes  that  the  time  has  arrived  when  the 
history  of  the  work  and  struggles  of  the  Kentucky  Union 
ists  may  be  published  without  calling  forth  any  complaint 
of  "opening  up  old  controversies.*'  Surely,  after  the 
lapse  of  forty  years,  they  may  be  written  about  without 
incurring  the  criticism  of  reviving  any  bitterness  of  the 
past. 

The  keynote  of  this  work  will  be  that  Kentucky  was  a 
Union  States  that  the  issue  was  thoroughly  understood, 
and  that  the  people  of  Kentucky  manifested  their  inten 
tion  to  remain  in  the  Union,  and  not  to  go  into  the 
Confederacy,  by  overwhelming  majorities  at  the  polls,  at 
fair  and  impartial  elections,  untrammelled  by  any  sugges 
tion  of  military  interference,  for  the  elections  occurred 
before  any  soldiers  were  in  the  State.  Basing  the  con 
duct  of  the  people  upon  this  unquestioned  fact,  it  will 


Preface  xiii 

be  shown  that  the  Kentucky  Unionists  did  that  which  it 
was  their  right  to  do,  in  adhering  to  the  Union.  When 
it  is  charged  that  the  Union  leaders  of  Kentucky  "played 
a  dark  and  deceitful  game,"  it  is  proper  that  the  true 
position  should  be  stated  according  to  the  records.  It  is 
stated  by  one  writer,  as  late  as  1882,  that: 

"  The  history  of  no  country,  or  no  part  or  period  of  the  late 
Civil  War,  presents  a  darker  chapter  than  that  which  records 
the  first  six  months  of  the  war,  and  the  means  by  which  Ken 
tucky  was  finally  occupied  by  the  Federal  army,  and,  being 
thus  bound,  was  claimed  to  be  loyal,  in  the  sense  of  sanction 
ing  such  a  policy."  (Memorial  History  of  Louisville,  Vol.  i, 
p.  196.) 

When  the  struggle  of  the  Union  leaders  of  Kentucky 
is  thus  characterized,  surely  it  is  in  order  to  present  the 
facts  which  repel  the  charge,  and  justify  their  conduct. 
When  it  is  gravely  written,  in  accepted  histories  of  Ken 
tucky,  that  the  "flower  of  the  military  material  of  Ken 
tucky  went  into  the  Confederate  army,"  surely  it  is  in 
order  to  present  the  record-facts  of  the  period  which 
show  that  the  most  conspicuous  "rush  to  arms"  in  Ken 
tucky  was  to  save  the  Union,  and  not  to  destroy  it. 

It  is  also  proper,  and  in  order,  to  present  the  record- 
facts  which  correct  many  misrepresentations  upon  other 
points  found  in  treatises  claiming  to  be  historical.  An 
adequate  presentation  of  the  case  as  it  is  found  in  the 
records  of  the  period  cannot  fail  to  show  that  the  people 
of  Kentucky  were  true  to  the  Union,  and  that  they 
magnificently  carried  into  practice  the  principles  they 
most  emphatically  avowed  at  the  polls ;  and  the  attempt 
will  be  made  in  this  work  to  do  justice  to  the  splen 
did  body  of  troops,  which,  under  trying  circumstances, 
sprang  forth  to  aid  in  preventing  the  dismemberment  of 
the  Union,  and  the  destruction  of  the  American  Republic. 

Concerning  the  general  subject  of  the  Union  cause  in 
Kentucky  the  eloquent  words  penned  by  Gen.  D.  W. 


xiv  Preface 

Lindsay  in  1866,  in  his  preface  to  the  Adjutant-General's 
report,  are  here  quoted : — 

"  It  has  been  fashionable  with  some  to  reflect  upon  the  loy 
alty  of  our  State,  but  every  true  man  must  feel  and  cordially 
confess  that  Kentucky  has,  during  the  late  war,  under  circum 
stances  far  more  trying  than  those  surrounding  any  other  State 
in  the  Union,  discharged  her  whole  duty.  She  has,  at  all 
times  and  under  all  circumstances,  promptly  responded  to  the 
quotas  assigned  her,  not  with  the  mercenary,  purchased  by 
excessive  State  or  local  bounty,  but  with  citizens  prompted  by 
patriotism  to  the  defence  of  their  government.  In  proof  of 
this,  the  gallant  record  of  our  State,  I  would  refer  those 
doubting  to  the  casualty  statistics  of  this  report,  the  record  of 
battles  in  which  Kentucky  troops  have  borne  an  honorable 
part,  and  lastly  to  the  seventy-nine  stand  of  colors,  those  silent 
yet  eloquent  souvenirs  of  toil  and  danger,  now  displayed  in 
the  Capitol  of  the  State,  to  remain  as  evidence  of  the  bravery 
of  her  sons,  and  as  an  incentive  to  continued  patriotism  and 
sacrifice  wherever  duty  calls.  Many  of  these  flags  have  been 
pierced  by  shot  and  shell  and  their  folds  stained  with  the 
blood  of  their  bearers,  but  all  bearing  evidence  of  the  duty 
which  Kentucky  troops  were  expected  to,  and  did,  perform. 
Certainly  no  one  will  rejoice  more  than  your  Excellency  in 
the  fact  that  there  is  not  a  blemish  upon  the  escutcheon  of  a 
single  organization  from  Kentucky." 

The  author  is  greatly  indebted  to  Justice  John  M. 
Harlan  of  the  Supreme  Court  for  his  painstaking  reading 
of  this  book  before  publication,  his  numerous  suggestions, 
and  kindly  aid  in  many  particulars.  Also  to  Gen.  D.  W. 
Lindsay  of  Frankfort,  Ky.,  who  served  in  the  field,  and 
also  as  Adjutant-General  of  Kentucky,  and  as  such  pub 
lished  his  excellent  and  invaluable  report,  in  which  the 
names  of  all  the  soldiers  furnished  by  the  State  appear. 

The  author  is  also  indebted  to  Hon.  Walter  Evans, 
Judge  of  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  West 
ern  District  of  Kentucky,  who  served  in  the  25th  Ken- 


Preface  xv 

tucky  Infantry,  and  having  represented  his  district  in 
Congress,  as  well  as  in  the  Legislature,  has  a  wide  knowl 
edge  of  the  affairs  of  the  State;  to  Col.  R.  M.  Kelly, 
who  served  through  the  war  and  has  written  numerous 
accounts  for  the  Loyal  Legion  Society,  and  for  the 
Century  War  Book,  and  other  publications ;  to  Col.  John 
H.  Ward,  a  gallant  officer  from  the  "Green  River 
Country"  and  deeply  interested  in  everything  pertaining 
to  the  history  of  Kentucky ;  and  also  to  Hon.  John  W. 
Barr,  retired  United  States  District  Judge,  who,  as  Major 
of  State  Troops,  was  thoroughly  informed  as  to  the  most 
of  the  events  treated  of  in  this  work ;  also  to  Col.  Andrew 
Cowan,  who,  though  not  a  native  of  Kentucky,  has 
resided  in  Louisville  since  the  close  of  the  war.  He  was 
Colonel  of  Artillery  in  the  Army  of  the  Potomac,  and 
fought  his  guns  in  all  the  great  battles  in  which  that 
army  was  engaged  from  Bull  Run  to  Appomattox.  A 
man  of  great  practical  wisdom  and  intelligence,  he  has 
given  the  writer  the  kindly  benefit  of  the  judgment  of  a 
friend  contemplating  the  story  contained  in  this  work 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  disinterested  soldier  and  critic ; 
also  to  James  F.  Buckner,  Dr.  Wm.  Bailey,  Logan  C. 
Murray,  L.  N.  Dembitz,  to  all  of  whom  the  author 
acknowledges  his  indebtedness. 
LOUISVILLE,  KY., 
November  26,  1904. 


CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

FOREWORD v 

CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTION  i 

End  of  old  Whig  party  in  1853.  Know-nothing  party.  Oppo 
sition  party.  Election  of  Governor  and  Legislature  in  1859. 
Union  party  and  its  leaders.  Their  services,  and  the  feeling 
against  them.  Their  object  was  to  save  the  Union.  Misrepre 
sentations.  Collins's  History  of  Kentucky.  Shaler's  History  of 
Kentucky.  Z.  F.  Smith's  History  of  Kentucky.  All  abound  in 
gratuitous  statements.  Object  of  this  work  is  to  correct  misrepre 
sentations.  Some  instances  mentioned. 

CHAPTER  II 
THE  ISSUE 16 

The  issue  formed  in  1860  between  the  Union  and  secessionists. 
Presidential  election  of  1860.  Discussion.  Election  of  clerk  of 
the  Court  of  Appeals.  Central  position  of  Kentucky.  Anxiety 
about  Kentucky.  The  people  chose  the  Union  as  against  seces 
sion.  They  did  not  agree  that  a  State  had  the  right  to  secede. 
Secession  a  remedy  for  no  evil.  The  South  did  that  which  made 
war  inevitable.  Kentucky  had  the  right  to  refuse  to  secede. 

CHAPTER    III 

THE  LEGISLATURE 26 

The  Legislature  which  sat  in  called  session  in  the  winter  and 
spring  of  1860-61  was  elected  in  1859.  Called  to  assemble  on  Jan 
uary  17,  1861.  Dates  of  its  sittings.  More  noted  for  what  it  did 
not  do  than  for  what  it  did.  It  did  not  call  a  convention  accord 
ing  to  the  wishes  of  the  Governor.  Resolutions  concerning 
National  affairs  passed  the  House  but  were  not  acted  upon  by  the 
Senate.  Neutrality  resolution  offered  in  lower  House.  Resolu 
tion  for  Peace  Conference  passed  both  Houses.  Other  resolutions. 
Militia  law  amended.  Adjourned  sine  die  April  4,  but  called 
again  to  meet  May  5.  Secession  opposition  to  this  call.  Resolu 


xviii  Contents 

PAGE 

tion  approving  Governor's  refusal  to  furnish  troops  under  existing 
circumstances  passed  lower  House.  Military  Board  established. 
State  Guards  and  Home  Guards  required  to  swear  fidelity  to  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  Arms  provided  not  to  be  used 
against  either  side,  but  only  for  State  protection.  Next  Legislature 
to  meet  in  September.  Views  as  to  work  of  Legislature.  Means 
by  which  the  Legislature  was  prevented  from  favoring  secession. 
Fusion  of  the  Bell-Everett  party  and  the  Douglas  party — both 
being  for  the  Union.  The  work  of  the  leaders.  Their  discreet 
conduct. 

CHAPTER    IV 

NEUTRALITY 40 

To  be  understood  only  in  the  light  of  the  time.  The  idea  arose 
in  January,  1861.  Expressed  in  a  resolution  offered  in  the  Legis 
lature  January  29,  1861.  Possibility  of  averting  war.  Position  of 
John  C.  Breckinridge.  Addresses  of  Border  State  Convention. 
The  true  spirit  of  neutrality.  Address  of  Col.  R.  T.  Jacob.  Gov 
ernor  Magoffin's  proclamation.  Difference  between  mediatorial  and 
armed  neutrality.  Prime  object  of  the  Unionists  was  to  save  the 
Union.  Appeal  of  Border  State  Convention  and  names  of  the 
signers.  Expressions  of  Hon.  Charles  A.  Wickliffe  and  Stephen 
A.  Douglas,  and  Tennessee  Unionists.  Unionists  unjustly  cen 
sured.  Expressions  of  Hon.  John  J.  Crittenden.  Lincoln  felt 
that  Kentucky  "  would  be  a  turning  weight  in  the  scale  of  war." 

CHAPTER  V 

RESOLUTIONS  OF  THE  UNION  STATE  COMMITTEE  .  .  .  -57 
Explanation  of  expressions  indorsing  the  Governor's  refusal  to 
send  troops,  and  as  to  taking  sides  with  the  South.  Names  of 
members  of  the  committee.  Inflammatory  utterances  of  the  day. 
War  for  "  subjugation,"  as  the  word  was  used,  regarded  as  folly. 
Extracts  from  speeches  and  writers,  showing  what  the  Southern 
people  meant  by  "  subjugation."  Such  subjugation  never  contem 
plated  by  the  United  States,  nor  by  the  Kentucky  Unionists, 
though  they  were  determined  to  suppress  rebellion.  Crittenden 
resolution  shows  this.  All  turned  on  the  meaning  given  to  the 
word  "subjugation."  Same  as  to  the  word  "coercion."  Seces 
sion  would  destroy  the  Republic,  and  the  war  was  unavoidable. 

CHAPTER   VI 
THE  UNION  LEADERS 71 

Due  that  their  names  be  given.  Voting  of  the  people  indicated 
strong  leadership,  Those  named,  all  prominent  before  the  war. 


Contents  xix 

PAGE 

Names.  All  leaders  of  public  sentiment.  Many  others  were  asso 
ciated  with  them.  Gratitude  due  them  all  for  the  present  glory  of 
the  American  Republic. 

CHAPTER  VII 

ELECTIONS  IN  1861 87 

Election  of  May  4,  for  delegates  to  Border  State  Convention. 
Congressional  electional,  June  20 — nine  of  the  ten  elected  being 
Union.  August  election  for  members  of  the  Legislature.  Union 
majority  between  fifty  and  sixty  thousand.  Details  of  vote  in 
Louisville.  All  elections  untrammelled,  as  there  were  no  soldiers  in 
the  State.  They  show  the  Union  sentiment  of  Kentucky.  But 
secession  leaders  not  satisfied.  Position  of  Unionists  right.  Men 
tion  of  those  elections  by  historians. 

CHAPTER    VIII 

THE  "LINCOLN  GUNS" 99 

Account  given  by  Rev.  Daniel  Stevenson.  Lieut.  Wm.  Nelson's 
visit  to  Louisville.  Has  conference  at  Frankfort.  The  bringing 
and  distribution  of  guns.  Justice  Harlan's  account. 

CHAPTER   IX 

ABANDONMENT  OF  NEUTRALITY 122 

People  in  advance  of  leaders.  The  independence  of  Kentucky 
not  possible.  The  State  Guard.  Lieut.  Wm.  Nelson,  and  intro 
duction  of  arms,  Earlier  "  violation  "  of  neutrality.  Neutrality 
dated  back  to  January.  Violation  in  April  by  Confederates. 
Attitude  of  Confederate  authorities,  Confederate  recruiting  offi 
cers  in  Kentucky  in  April.  March  from  the  State  of  Confederate 
troops  in  April.  Confederates  on  Tennessee  border  occupying 
gaps  in  mountains  and  camps  in  the  State.  Magoffin's  request  to 
Lincoln  to  remove  troops  from  Camp  Dick  Robinson.  Reply. 
Shaler's  view.  Confederate  invasion  September  3.  The  number 
who  went  south  from  Kentucky. 

CHAPTER   X 

THE  RALLY 140 

Erroneous  statements  as  to  Kentucky  Unionists.  Adjutant-General 
Thomas,  General  Sherman.  General  McCook.  The  injustice. 
Contradiction.  More  troops  enlisted  in  Union  regiments  in  summer 
and  fall  of  1861  than  went  south  during  the  entire  war.  Early 
service.  Camp  Joe  Holt.  Camp  Clay.  Camp  Dick  Robinson. 
Prompt  filling  of  the  regiments.  The  sections  of  the  State  formed. 
Camp  Calhoun.  James  F.  Buckner's  men.  Greensburg.  General 
mention  of  early  service.  Organizations  of  1862,  1863,  1864. 


xx  Contents 

PAGE 

Batteries.  Total  number,  including  State  troops.  Comparison 
with  numbers  of  Confederates.  General  officers.  Shaler's  views 
contradicted  byk the  historian  of  First  Kentucky  ("Orphan")  Brigade. 

CHAPTER   XI 

LOCATION  OF  UNION  SENTIMENT 158 

General,  all  over  the  State.  Invidious  comparison  by  the  his 
torian  Shaler.  The  Blue  Grass  section.  The  city  of  Louisville. 
Union  Club.  Home  Guards.  Seven  Union  regiments  from 
Louisville  and  vicinity.  City  Council.  Louisville  called  City  of 
Flags.  Patriotic  work  of  citizens.  The  first  district.  Second 
district.  Hopkinsville.  Bowling  Green.  The  Green  River 
Country.  Maysville  district. 

CHAPTER   XTI 

FORCE  AGAINST  FORCE 180 

Plan  to  take  Kentucky  out  of  the  Union  by  force.  Dr.  R.  J. 
Breckinridge's  account.  Corroboration  by  General  Humphrey 
Marshall  and  Garrett  Davis.  The  defence  of  the  State  against  the 
proposed  uprising.  The  conspirators  foiled.  Appearance  on  the 
Kentucky  stage  of  Generals  Thomas,  Sherman,  and  Grant.  In 
the  fall  of  1861  the  way  was  open  for  all  to  take  sides.  Error 
contradicted.  Resistance  in  western  and  eastern  parts  of  the 
State.  Colonels  Garrard  and  Wolford  encounter  Confederates  at 
Camp  Wild  Cat.  Battle  of  Mill  Spring. 

CHAPTER   XIII 
PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT 200 

Secessionists  beaten  at  the  August  election,  1861.  Still  insist  on 
governing  the  State.  Convention  in  the  military  camp  at  Russell- 
ville.  The  call  by  the  Conference.  Proceedings  of  the  Convention 
Kentucky  absolved  from  allegiance  to  the  National  Government. 
Committee  appointed  to  get  Kentucky  admitted  into  the  Con 
federacy.  Form  of  government  made  for  Kentucky.  Power  to 
make  laws  vested  in  a  Governor  and  Council  of  Ten.  Geo.  W. 
Johnson  made  Governor,  and  ten  councilmen  appointed.  Some 
"acts"  of  this  legislative  body.  Kentucky  received  into  the 
Confederacy.  This  was  not  secession,  but  revolution,  according 
to  Geo.  W.  Johnson.  His  bitter  denunciation  of  the  Union 
leaders.  Governor  Magoffin's  opinion  on  the  subject.  Mention  in 
the  histories  of  Kentucky. 

CHAPTER  XIV 

BRAGG'S  INVASION  OF  KENTUCKY 212 

Correctly   called  invasion.     Conscription    to  be   made.     Also,    a 


Contents  xxi 

PACE 

movement  for  supplies.  Battle  of  Perryville.  Retreat.  Wagon 
train  of  supplies.  Bragg's  and  Kirby  Smith's  addresses.  Com 
ments  of  historians.  Rally  of  Unionists  to  defend  Kentucky. 
Killing  of  General  Nelson.  Magoffin's  resignation,  and  James  F. 
Robinson  made  Governor.  Robinson's  proclamation.  Eleven 
new  Union  regiments  formed.  Rally  to  defend  Louisville.  The 
small  number  recruited  by  General  Bragg.  His  disappointment. 
Removal  from  Frankfort  by  Governor  Robinson  soon  after  he  was 
made  Governor.  Inauguration  of  "  Governor  "  Hawes  and  his  re 
moval  during  the  ceremonies.  Gen.  George  W.  Morgan's  retreat 
from  Cumberland  Gap. 

CHAPTER   XV 

MORGAN'S  RAID  225 

Heads  of  chapters  in  General  Duke's  History,  showing  escapes, 
retreats,  and  defeats.  Morgan's  first  raid,  July,  1862.  The  sec 
ond  raid  being  in  connection  with  Bragg's  invasion.  Battle  with 
Home  Guards  at  Augusta.  Effort  to  shut  off  retreat  of  Gen.  Geo. 
W.  Morgan.  Retreat  out  of  the  State  by  way  of  Hopkinsville. 
The  third  raid.  Col.  John  M.  Harlan  defeats  Morgan  at  Rolling 
Fork.  Retreat  out  of  the  State,  pursued  by  Kentucky  troops. 
The  fourth  raid,  July,  1863,  extending  to  Indiana  and  Ohio.  The 
pursuit  and  capture  was  by  Kentucky  regiments,  and  was  more 
remarkable  than  the  raid.  Surrender  to  "militia  captain."  The 
fifth  and  last  raid,  June,  1864.  Came  through  Pound  Gap.  Col. 
John  Mason  Brown's  pursuit.  Fight  at  Cynthiana.  Morgan  de 
feated.  Comments  on  this  raid.  Mention  of  the  Kentucky  regi 
ments  engaged  in  protecting  the  State. 

CHAPTER    XVI 
THE  GUERRILLA  EVIL 242 

The  officers  in  command  in  Kentucky.  Burbridge.  Retaliation. 
Kentucky  overrun  by  raiding  bands  called  guerrillas.  Indiscrimi 
nate  censure  of  Federal  officers  and  Federal  troops.  Guerrilla 
warfare  authorized  by  Confederate  Government.  Governor  Bram- 
lette's  proclamation.  The  terms  "guerrillas"  and  "partisan  rangers" 
used  interchangeably.  Their  work  identical.  Confederate  Congress 
authorized  partisan  rangers.  Protection  of  State  by  Home  Guards. 
Extracts  from  the  records  to  show  who  the  guerrillas  were.  So 
injurious  were  they  the  Confederate  Congress  repealed  the  act  of 
authorization  except  as  to  those  serving  within  the  enemy's  lines. 
Fourteen  court  houses  in  Kentucky  burned  by  Confederates,  and  one 
by  carelessness  of  Union  soldiers.  Mention  of  guerrillas  in  General 
Duke's  History.  Letter  of  General  N.  B.  Forrest  on  the  subject. 
Union  soldiers  were  protecting  the  State  against  such  outrages. 


xxii  Contents 

PAGB 

CHAPTER  XVII 

HALLUCINATIONS 269 

Injustice  done  by  questioning  the  loyalty  of  Kentucky.  Claims 
that  were  made.  Misrepresentations.  Confederates  loath  to  give 
up  the  idea  that  Kentucky  would  join  them.  Hallucination  that  the 
people  of  Kentucky  did  not  know  what  they  wanted.  General 
Bragg's  address.  View  of  General  Hodge,  writing  in  Collin's  Ken 
tucky.  Hallucination  that  individual  rights  must  not  be  disturbed 
even  in  raging  war.  Injustice  done  to  officers  in  command  in 
Kentucky,  while  Morgan's  exploits  extolled.  How  the  Confed 
eracy  treated  persons  not  loyal  to  it.  Davis's  proclamation  of  ban 
ishment.  Retaliation  chargeable  to  both  sides.  "  Military 
interference,"  at  the  polls.  Hallucination  that  McClellan  could 
put  down  the  rebellion  better  than  Lincoln.  Hallucination  of 
Southern  superiority. 

CHAPTER  XVIII 

PATRIOTISM  OF  KENTUCKY-  UNIONISTS 288 

Value  of  their  services  to  the  country.  Protecting  Government 
interests  in  Kentucky.  Importance  of  railroad  communication. 
Protection  of  Government  supplies  at  Louisville.  Kentucky  Union 
soldiers  the  same  as  those  from  any  other  State.  Reasons  Ken- 
tuckians  adhered  to  the  Union.  Preservation  of  the  Union  the 
greatest  achievement  made  by  the  human  race.  The  Monroe 
Doctrine.  The  records  tell  the  story  of  Kentucky  patriotism. 

CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  SOLDIERS 298 

No  reason  for  comparison  of  soldierly  qualities  of  troops  on  the 
respective  sides.  But  injustice  has  been  done  to  the  Union  soldiers 
in  this  particular.  Shaler's  views  as  to  cavalry  and  infantry.  As 
to  the  soldiers  from  the  Blue  Grass  section.  Statement  of  Col. 
Ed.  Porter  Thompson,  the  historian  of  the  First  Confederate 
Brigade.  Morgan's  men.  Federal  brigades.  Lewis  D.  Watkins. 
E.  H.  Murray.  Federal  cavalry  in  the  Atlanta  campaign.  Col. 
Charles  S.  Hanson.  Table  showing  the  number  in  the  Kentucky 
regiments.  Regiments  at  Shiloh— in  Buell's  march— the  I5th  at 
Perryville.  Regiments  at  Stone  River.  At  Vicksburg.  At  Chicka- 
mauga.  At  Knoxville.  At  Mission  Ridge.  The  2yth  at  Beans 
Station.  Regiments  in  the  Atlanta  campaign.  On  the  Saltville 
expeditions.  The  28th  at  Spring  Hill.  The  izth  and  i6th  at 
Franklin.  No  blemish  on  the  escutcheon  of  any  Kentucky  regi . 
ment.  No  troops  any  better.  Shaler's  errors. 


Contents  xxiii 

PAGE 

CHAPTER   XX 

STATE  TROOPS  AND  HOME  GUARDS 316 

Organized  for  State  protection  against  raidings.  Mention  of  guer 
rillas  by  the  historian  Collins.  Number  and  names  of  battalions. 
Mention  by  the  Adjutant-General  of  the  State.  Mention  of  their 
engagements  by  Collins.  Wm.  H.  Wadsworth  commander  in 
Maysville  district.  Mention  of  these  troops  by  commanders.  Un 
founded  censure. 

CHAPTER   XXI 
THE  NUMBER  ENGAGED 329 

Mistake  that  Confederate  defeats  were  due  to  superior  numbers 
against  them.  Examination  of  the  claim  that  there  were  2,700,000 
Federal  soldiers,  and  only  600,000  Confederates.  The  2,700,000 
figure  represents  that  many  enlistments,  not  that  many  soldiers, 
the  number  being  made  up  by  re-enlistments.  The  number  of 
Federal  soldiers  about  1,700,000.  The  600,000  figure  has  no 
foundation.  Proof  that  there  were  more.  Estimate  based  on  the 
number  which  surrendered  is  valueless.  The  eleven  seceding 
States  furnished  over  900,000,  and  to  this  must  be  added  all  fur 
nished  by  the  border  States,  Confederate  official  reports  show  that 
six  seceded  States  furnished  nearly  600,000  up  to  the  close  of  1863. 
The  other  five  States  and  the  border  States  brought  the  number  up 
to  over  1,000,000.  This  is  the  estimate  of  the  historian  Woodrow 
Wilson  and  others. 

APPENDIX 346 


UNION  CAUSE  IN  KENTUCKY 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTORY 

THE  last  contest  in  Kentucky  between  the  political 
parties  known  as  Whigs  and  Democrats  occurred 
in  1853.  At  the  regular  August  election  in  that  year  five 
Whigs  and  five  Democrats  were  elected  to  Congress; 
twenty-two  Whigs  and  sixteen  Democrats  to  the  State 
Senate,  and  fifty-five  Whigs  and  forty-five  Democrats  to 
the  lower  House.  (Collins,  vol.  i,  p.  67.)  After  this 
the  Democratic  party  was  opposed  by  the  American  or 
"Know-Nothing"  party.  At  the  August  election,  1855, 
the  Know-Nothing  party  elected  the  Governor,  Charles 
S.  Morehead,  also  six  of  the  Congressmen,  and  a  decided 
majority  of  the  State  Legislature.  That  party  was 
short-lived.  In  1859  those  opposed  to  the  Democratic 
party  had  no  other  designation  than  simply  "the  Oppo 
sition."  In  1859  Beriah  Magoffin  was  elected  Governor 
by  the  Democrats  over  Joshua  F.  Bell,  "Opposition." 
At  the  same  time  a  Legislature  was  elected  in  harmony 
with  the  Governor.  This  Governor  and  this  Legislature 
were  in  office  when  the  troubles  of  1861  came  upon  the 
State  and  country.  In  the  succeeding  chapter  some  of 


2  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

the  events  of  the  year  1860,  particularly  the  voting,  will 
be  shown.  It  is  enough  in  this  place  to  say  that,  in  that 
year,  the  '*  Opposition"  party  came  to  be  called  the 
"Union"  party,  and  the  Democratic  party  was  known  as 
the  "Southern  Rights"  party.  The  latter  party  main 
tained  its  old  organization,  but  on  the  part  of  the  Union 
ists  there  was  no  organization,  and  in  this  respect  they 
were  at  a  disadvantage.  The  general  direction  and 
management  of  the  Union  party  naturally  fell  into  the 
hands  of  those  who  came  to  be  termed  "Union  leaders." 
The  names  of  a  number  of  these  will  appear  in  this  work. 
It  may  be  here  said  of  them,  that  at  no  time  in  the  his 
tory  of  Kentucky  was  there  within  her  borders  a  more 
illustrious  galaxy  of  patriots  and  statesmen  than  those 
who  espoused  the  Union  cause  in  1861.  They  were  men 
of  high  character,  wide  reputation,  ability,  and  true 
worth.  They  were  the  thoughtful,  calm,  and  judicial- 
minded  men  of  the  State.  Some  were  old  line  Whigs, 
some  had  been  identified  with  the  Democratic  party,  but 
at  this  time  all  stood  together  as  Unionists,  and  they 
were  worthy  of  the  position  that  was  accorded  to  them  of 
"Union  leaders." 

Some  eminent  men  espoused  the  Southern  cause,  but 
if  anything  can  be  true  in  history,  it  is  true  that  the 
greater  portion  of  Kentucky's  chief  citizens  in  1861  were 
Unionists  precisely  as  the  great  majority  of  the  voters  of 
the  State  were  Unionists.  Among  the  interesting  studies 
sometimes  made  is  that  of  selecting  the  names  of  the 
twelve  greatest  Kentuckians.  In  the  lists  so  prepared 
the  names  of  the  great  Unionists  of  1861  liberally  appear. 
If  an  effort  should  be  made  to  determine  who  were  the 
twelve  most  distinguished  citizens  of  Kentucky  in  1861, 
it  would  not  be  possible  to  find  any  who  would  be 
named  before  John  J.  Crittenden,  James  Guthrie,  S.  S. 
Nicholas,  Chief  Justice  George  Robertson,  Robert  J. 
Breckinridge,  Charles  A.  Wickliffe,  James  Speed,  James 


Introductory  3 

F.  Robinson,  Joshua  F.  Bell,  Archibald  Dixon,  James 
Harlan,  and  William  H.  Wadsworth.  Yet  when  they 
are  named,  another  twelve  appear,  of  like  prominence: 
Garrett  Davis,  Joseph  Holt,  George  D.  Prentice,  John 
H.  Harney,  Charles  S.  Todd,  Francis  M.  Bristow, 
Joshua  F.  Speed,  Joseph  R.  Underwood,  Thomas  L. 
Crittenden,  Judge  Henry  Pirtle,  Curtis  F.  Burnam,  and 
John  B.  Huston.  Such  lists  might  be  repeated  many 
times  over,  all  being  Unionists. 

It  is  proper  to  state,  in  this  connection,  that  a  few 
distinguished  men  who  allied  themselves  with  the  Union 
ists  at  first,  and  thereby  gave  the  weight  of  their  influ 
ence  to  set  public  sentiment  toward  the  Union,  after  a 
time  changed  their  minds,  and  supported,  by  their  sym 
pathy,  at  least,  the  other  side.  Notable  among  these 
was  ex-Governor  Charles  H.  Morehead,  who  was  elected 
as  a  Unionist  to  the  Border  State  Convention  by  the 
vote  of  May  4,  1861.  On  the  iQth  of  September,  1861,  he 
was  arrested  by  the  Federal  authorities  and  confined  in 
Fort  Lafayette,  New  York.  In  his  biography  it  is  said  : 

"  The  sole  offence  of  Gov.  Morehead  was  that  he  sympa 
thized  with  the  Southern  people  in  their  struggle  for  liberty; 
but  not  only  had  he  committed  no  overt  act,  but  he  had  a 
short  time  previous  been  a  member  of  the  Peace  Conference, 
among  the  foremost  councillors  for  conciliation  and  peace." 
(Collins,  vol.  ii.,  p.  388.) 

Hon.  Joshua  F.  Bullitt,  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
was  a  leading  Unionist.  He  assisted  in  getting  arms  for 
the  Union  men  of  Kentucky  in  the  early  summer  of 
1861.  In  September  he  accompanied  the  troops  which 
went  out  from  Louisville  to  resist  the  Confederate  ad 
vance.  In  that  fall  he  was  especially  trusted,  as  an 
earnest  Union  man,  by  Gen.  W.  T.  Sherman.  Later, 
however,  he  gave  his  influence  to  the  other  side. 

The  work  of  the  Union  leaders  was  beset  with  difficul- 


4  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

ties.  Opposition  to  the  plans  and  purposes  of  the 
Southern  Rights  party,  which  strove  to  carry  Kentucky 
into  secession,  had  to  be  made  without  party  organiza 
tion.  The  leaders  had  behind  them,  as  they  believed,  a 
majority  of  the  people,  but  it  was  not  until  the  voting  of 
1861  came  that  they  could  be  assured  of  that  fact.  They 
were  on  new  and  untried  ground,  all  through  the  early 
months  of  1861,  and  they  came  upon  many  uncertainties 
and  many  surprises.  The  struggle,  on  their  part,  to  save 
the  Union  from  destruction  was  unlike  anything  ever 
before  experienced.  Suddenly  they  found  old  lines 
broken  up,  and  from  both  of  the  old  political  parties 
men  were  joining  hands  in  a  contest  that  was  all  new. 

By  the  splendid  services  of  these  men  the  people  were 
held  steady  against  alt  the  efforts  to  get  up  excitement 
and  a  frenzy  that  would  rush  them  into  secession.  Not, 
indeed,  that  it  appears  that  there  was  at  any  time  any 
wavering  on  the  part  of  the  people  in  their  allegiance  to 
the  Union;  but  it  is  in  accord  with  natural  reason  that 
the  influence  and  example  of  the  great  men  who  have 
been  named  and  will  be  named,  along  with  many  others 
who  cannot  be  named  for  want  of  space,  had  much  to 
do  with  the  firm  and  resolute  stand  of  the  Kentucky 
people  for  the  Union  during  the  crisis  through  which 
they  passed. 

The  leaders  were  charged  by  the  Southern  Rights  men 
with  being  the  authors  of  all  their  misfortunes,  and  the 
charge,  in  general,  is  true.  In  the  contest,  the  Southern 
Rights  advocates  were  defeated,  and  the  Unionists  won. 
The  defeat  of  secession  was  the  object  for  which  the 
Unionists  contended.  But  coupled  with  the  general 
charge  were  criminations  and  epithets  wholly  wrong  and 
wholly  unjust.  As  a  specimen  of  the  style  and  nature  of 
these  charges,  the  following  quotation  is  made  from  a 
letter  of  George  W.  Johnson,  just  after  he  was  chosen  to 
be  Provisional  Governor  of  Kentucky,  in  which  he  gives 


Introductory  5 

the  reasons  why  Kentucky  ought  to  be  admitted  into  the 
Confederacy.  The  letter  is  dated  Nov.  21,  1861,  from 
Russellville,  Ky.,  and  is  to  President  Davis.  After  pre 
senting  his  case  in  his  own  way,  he  says: 

"  This  recital  is  made  for  one  purpose  alone,  and  that  is  to 
show  that  the  whole  body  of  the  people  of  Kentucky  have,  in 
the  last  year,  repeatedly  avowed  themselves  in  favor  of  an  in 
timate,  peaceful  connection  of  the  State,  by  a  vote  of  the 
people,  with  the  Confederate  States.  The  Union  leaders 
avowed  the  same  intention  until  they  had  organized  an  army 
sufficient  to  protect  themselves  against  the  rage  of  the  people. 
No  one  could  have  anticipated  the  unparalleled 
audacity  and  treachery  of  the  leaders  of  the  Union  party  when 
they  violated  their  own  position  of  neutrality  and  deliberately 
determined  to  plunge  the  State  in  war." 

As  a  further  specimen,  the  following  is  quoted  from  an 
editorial  of  the  Louisville  Courier  of  February  n,  1862, 
then  published  at  Bowling  Green.  This  paper  was  the 
organ  of  the  Southern  Rights  party  in  Kentucky: 

"In  an  hour  fraught  with  woe  and  misery  to  the  future  of 
the  State,  there  came  forth  from  the  wrecks  of  the  past  upon 
the  active  theatre  of  the  present,  to  resume  again  the  councils 
of  the  State,  such  men  as  John  J.  Crittenden,  Garrett  Davis, 
James  Guthrie,  S.  S.  Nicholas,  George  D.  Prentice,  and  a 
host  of  lesser  satellites,  whom  the  people  had  long  since  repu 
diated  as  unworthy  of  their  confidence. 

"At  the  time  when  the  propriety  of  a  State  convention  was 
being  discussed  and  delegates  being  chosen  by  the  people  to 
represent  them  in  the  State  convention,  these  men  showed  the 
cloven  foot  in  attempting  to  engraft  upon  the  present  consti 
tution  germs  of  emancipation  which  were  ultimately  to  spring 
up  into  a  full  harvest  of  their,  so  much  coveted,  result. 
Basely  deceiving  the  people  with  the  false  cry  of  neutrality, 
they  designedly  sought  this  means  of  deluding  them  for  a 
time,  during  which  they  might  thrust  their  poison  into  the 
very  vitals  of  their  political  existence.  Hypocritical  in  their 
boasted  professions  of  love  and  friendship  for  the  South,  they 


6  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

greeted  her  with  alluring  smiles,  while  the  very  spirit  of  the 
devil  was  lurking  in  their  bosoms.  These  bold  and  reckless 
leaders  have  played  a  successful  game  upon  the  people  of  the 
State,  which  for  fraud,  deception,  and  hypocrisy  is  without  a 
parallel  in  the  records  of  infamy." 

Then  John  J.  Crittenden  is  individually  described  as 
Janus-faced;  Garrett  Davis  as  "the  little,  petty  tool  of 
despotism";  James  Guthrie  "would  see  the  people  of  the 
State  sacrificed  to  utter  ruin  if  such  a  step  were  necessary 
to  subserve  his  own  selfish  purposes  and  intents,"  "and 
the  same  is  applicable  to  S.  S.  Nicholas."  And  the  arti 
cle  winds  up  by  saying: 

"Freemen  of  Kentucky,  you  have  been  confidingly  led 
into  your  present  deplorable  condition  by  a  set  of  vile 
traitors."  1  [Louisville  Courier  (at  Bowling  Green),  Feb. 
n,  1862.] 

The  high  character  of  the  men  thus  assailed  is  suffi 
cient  answer  to  the  charges,  and  sufficient  to  prove  the 
folly  of  such  intemperate  writing.  Instead  of  words  of 
blame,  they  should  be  given  all  the  credit  for  doing  what 
was  right,  at  a  time  when  it  was  necessary  in  order  to 
prevent  others  from  doing  that  which  was  wrong.  Time 
has  vindicated  them.  The  right  and  the  wrong  were 
plainly  visible  in  the  day  they  acted,  as  well  as  at  all 
times  since. 

The  great  work  which  was  accomplished  by  the  Union 
ists  of  Kentucky  was  a  great  task  as  well.  The  absence 
of  party  organization  and  the  fact  that  in  the  Union 
party,  which  was  formed  for  the  occasion,  were  many 
who  had  come  out  from  the  ranks  of  the  opposite  party, 
produced  much  misunderstanding  and  confusion.  But 
the  issue  was  simple;  the  pole-star  to  guide  the  course 
was  the  Union;  the  danger  to  escape  was  secession. 
The  Kentucky  Unionists,  in  common  with  patriots  every 
where,  never  had  to  use  the  expression  that  they  con- 

1  See  Appendix,  §  I,  p.  336. 


Introductory  7 

tended  "for  what  they  thought  was  right,"  but  could 
always  say  they  contended  for  that  which  was  right — 
then  and  now. 

It  is  a  common  form  of  speech  that  "if  "  something 
had  or  had  not  occurred,  the  South  would  have  won. 
The  question  then  arises,  what  would  it  have  won?  The 
answer  is  found  in  utterances  common  even  to  this  day, 
"The  Southern  States  would  have  won  their  freedom." 
Are  they  not  now  free?  Is  it  any  burden  to  them  to-day 
to  form  a  part  of  the  United  States?  What  this  Union 
is  now  is  what  the  Unionists  of  Kentucky  contended  for 
in  1861. 

The  misrepresentations  contained  in  the  histories  of 
Kentucky  written  since  the  war  are  very  numerous, 
and  seem  to  spring  from  the  frame  of  mind  which,  in  the 
war  time  and  afterwards,  exalted  all  that  belonged  to  the 
South  and  regarded  with  contempt  all  that  was  allied 
with  "Yankees."  Those  who  desire  to  know  about 
Kentucky  during  the  war,  and  consult  the  histories  for 
that  purpose,  will  find  three  histories  of  Kentucky — Col- 
lins's,  Shaler's,  and  Smith's. 

Many  years  before  the  war  Lewis  Collins  published,  in 
one  volume,  a  history  of  Kentucky.  Shortly  after  the 
war,  Richard  H.  Collins  enlarged  this  history  to  two  vol 
umes.  He  was  engaged  upon  the  work  some  five  years 
and  collected  a  mass  of  material  of  great  value.  A  large 
part  of  the  first  volume  is  devoted  to  the  Annals  of 
Kentucky.  Under  this  head  are  noted  briefly,  on  suc 
cessive  dates,  the  principal  events  in  Kentucky,  from  the 
earliest  times  down  to  the  date  of  publication.  That 
portion  which  covers  the  period  of  the  Civil  War  occupies 
sixty-five  pages,  and  more  than  a  thousand  events  are 
noted.  Collins  was  thoroughly  Southern  in  sentiment, 
and  this  plainly  appears  even  in  the  entry  of  the  most 
ordinary  events.  He  has  a  sneer  for  the  Union  side  and 
approval  for  the  other.  He  makes  the  Southern  side 


8  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

appear  fair,  while  condemnation  falls  upon  the  Federals. 
Annotation  of  events  in  the  manner  and  tone  of  Collins 
tends  to  mislead  any  one  searching  for  the  truth. 

In  the  same  volume,  the  Outline  History,  which  covers 
the  war  period,  was  written  by  a  Confederate  officer, 
Gen.  Geo.  B.  Hodge,  a  Kentucky  secessionist  in  1861 
who  went  off  to  the  Confederacy.  Instances  of  his 
misrepresentations  will  be  referred  to  in  other  chapters. 

Shaler's  History  of  Kentucky  is  one  of  the  "American 
Commonwealth"  series.  In  the  preface  the  author  says 
he  "was  a  Unionist  during  the  war,"  adding:  "If  injus 
tice  has  been  done,  he  can  only  plead  in  extenuation 
that  he  sincerely  feels  that  the  honor  won  by  the  Confed 
erate  heroes  is  as  dear  to  him  as  the  fame  of  those  who 
were  on  his  own  side." 

As  the  book  is  perused,  it  will  strike  the  reader  that 
the  "fame"  of  his  own  side  is  ill-fame,  and  that  the 
object  in  view  as  to  the  other  is  to  exalt  its  virtues, 
valor,  and  prowess.  The  reader  will  search  in  vain  for 
any  words  of  approval  of  the  earnest  struggle  of  the 
Kentucky  Unionists,  disorganized  as  they  were  as  to 
party  advantages,  against  the  organization  of  the  oppo 
site  party  and  its  possession  of  the  State  government 
machinery.  On  the  other  hand  the  reader  will  learn 
that  the  secession  strength  in  the  State  was  in  the 
"wealthier  districts,"  and  that  it  was  on  the  "poorer 
soil"  that  there  was  opposition.  (P.  232.)  This  state 
ment  will  be  shown  to  be  incorrect,  as  shown  by  both 
the  voting  of  1861  and  the  enlistment  of  soldiers. 

Writing  of  events  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  trouble, 
he  says : 

"  In  a  certain  sense  the  Democratic  party  was  now  the  con 
servative  party  of  the  Commonwealth.  It  was  the  party  that 
desired  to  maintain  the  existing  state  of  institutions,  against  a 
faction  that  was  decidedly  revolutionary  in  its  tendencies,  in 


Introductory  9 

that  it  was  willing  to  take  some  active  measures  concerning 
slavery. ' ' 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find,  in  any  history,  a  more 
complete  reversal  of  the  facts  of  the  case.  In  the  first 
place,  the  Democratic  or  Secessionist  party  was  the 
revolutionary  party.  It  sought  to  disrupt  the  existing 
order;  take  the  State  out  of  the  Union,  and  join  the 
Confederacy,  and  this  the  Union  party  was  resisting. 
In  the  second  place,  no  disposition  appeared  anywhere 
on  the  part  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  to  intermeddle 
with  the  slavery  question  in  any  manner  whatsoever. 
The  only  way  that  an  anti-slavery  sentiment  can  be 
imputed  to  them  is  to  assume,  as  did  those  who  antago 
nized  them  at  the  time,  that  they  concealed  their  real 
motives,  were  treacherous  and  Janus-faced,  and  were  a 
set  of  "vile  traitors."  Other  instances  of  injustice  on 
the  part  of  this  historian  will  appear  in  the  course  of  this 
work. 

Z.  F.  Smith's  History  is  written  from  a  purely  Southern 
standpoint,  and  the  author  is  content,  in  large  measure, 
to  adopt  the  views  and  statements  of  Shaler,  from  whom 
he  quotes  liberally.  The  spirit  of  this  history  is  found 
in  the  lament  that  the  right  of  revolution  was  not 
appealed  to  by  the  South  instead  of  secession.  He  says : 

"  The  sovereignty  of  the  people,  original  and  unquestioned, 
is  greater  than  the  measure  of  sovereignty  they  delegate  to 
any  government,  and  the  right  of  revolution  for  sufficient 
cause  is  of  universal  concession.  On  plea  of  this  right  our 
fathers  justified  their  act  of  revolution  and  the  War  for  Inde 
pendence  before  an  approving  world.  .  .  .  Had  the  peo 
ple  of  the  seceding  States  planted , themselves  on  the  right  of 
revolution  as  in  the  Colonies,  and,  recognizing  that  necessity, 
safety,  and  independence  were  paramount  to  States'  rights, 
marched  their  armies  across  Maryland,  Kentucky,  and  Mis 
souri,  and  established  their  military  lines  upon  the  front  borders 
of  these,  there  is  not  a  doubt  that  the  soldier  element  would  have 


io  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

gone  into  the  ranks  of  the  Confederacy  as  solidly  in  the  three 
States  mentioned  as  in  Virginia,  Tennessee  and  Texas." 

This,  he  says,  would  have  doubled  the  resources  of  the 
Southern  army  for  supplies  and  controlled  the  Ohio  and 
Mississippi  rivers.  But,  unfortunately,  the  foresight  of 
statesmanship,  military  skill,  and  bravery  were  all  sacri 
ficed  to  doctrinairism.  Military  necessity,  he  says,  can 
not  afford  to  halt  at  abstractionism;  that  there  never 
was  a  time  more  urgent  of  Napoleonic  action,  but  "the 
etiquette  of  abstraction  could  not  admit  of  it." 

Thus  he  bewails,  as  late  as  1885,  that  the  South  did 
not  adopt  effective  means  to  break  up  the  American 
Union.  Other  illustrations  of  his  views  will  appear  in 
the  course  of  this  work. 

All  of  these  histories  abound  in  wholly  gratuitous 
statements.  They  are  not  content  to  relate  the  facts  as 
they  occurred,  but  deal  freely  with  general  assertions 
which  are  nothing  except  opinions,  and  yet  appearing 
upon  the  historic  page  are  apt  to  mislead  the  reader  who 
is  not  cautious.  It  will  be  seen  in  these  pages  that  there 
was  unusually  good  ground  for  knowing  the  mind  of  the 
Kentucky  people  at  the  beginning  of  the  war.  Two 
general  elections  in  1860,  and  three  in  1861,  all  resulting 
in  the  same  way,  ought  to  satisfy  any  reasonable  mind 
that  the  great  majority  of  the  Kentucky  people  were 
opposed  to  the  Southern  movement,  but  instead  of  em 
phasizing  this  fact  these  historians  lay  more  stress  upon 
the  assertion  of  what  the  Kentucky  people  believed 
about  the  abstract  or  moral  right  of  a  State  to  secede,  or 
what  they  believed  on  the  subject  of  coercion.  Also 
such  assertions  as  that  "the  undoubted  preference  of  the 
Kentucky  people  was  that  the  Southern  States  should 
be  allowed  to  go  in  peace,"  and  that  "the  people  clearly 
believed  that  both  sides  had  left  the  paths  of  the  Consti 
tution,  and  that  the  war  was  essentially  unconstitutional. " 

They  abound  also  in  complacent  uses  of  the  little  words 


Introductory  1 1 

"if,"  and  "had,"  and  "but  for,"  of  which  the  following 
illustrations  are  sufficient:  "If  General  Buell  had  not 
arrived  on  the  field  of  Shiloh,  Grant's  army  would  all 
have  been  captured."  "Had  General  Johnston  lived, 
the  three  hours  remaining  would  probably  have  served 
for  the  capture  of  the  whole,  the  defeat  of  Buell,  and  a 
triumphant  return  march  to  the  Ohio  River." 

When  there  is  such  an  immense  fund  of  historic  mate 
rial  pertaining  to  the  Civil  War,  it  discloses  the  animus 
of  a  writer  when  he  uses  space  for  indulging  fancy,  and 
dwells  upon  his  fond  imaginings  of  what  might  have  been. 

It  is  not  proposed  in  the  present  work  to  make  a  gen 
eral  history  of  Kentucky  during  the  Civil  War.  The 
object  is  rather  to  furnish  to  the  reader  a  volume  which 
will  serve  at  least  to  lead  away  from  misrepresentations, 
which  have  so  long  remained  unanswered,  to  the  true  and 
real  sources  of  information — the  contemporaneous  rec 
ords.  In  order  to  show  what  difficulties,  labors,  trials, 
and  hardships  were  undergone  by  the  Kentucky  Union 
ists,  it  will  be  necessary  to  recount  some  of  the  work  of 
the  opposite  side,  both  civil  and  military.  All  this, 
however,  will  be  covered  briefly,  in  fact,  in  many 
instances  only  suggested  for  the  reason  that  events  in 
Kentucky,  such,  for  instance,  as  Bragg's  invasion,  and 
the  battles  incident  thereto,  have  been  written  about,  at 
large,  in  many  general  histories.  In  the  mention  of  that 
particular  invasion,  the  main  object  of  this  author  is  to 
point  out  the  fact  that  the  people  of  Kentucky  then 
showed  their  Union  sentiment  by  enlisting  in  Union  regi 
ments  in  great  numbers  in  response  to  the  call  of  the 
Union  Governor  to  rise  and  repel  the  invader.  If  there 
had  been  any  doubt  about  the  stand  of  Kentucky  people, 
if  they  had  had  any  inclination  to  join  the  Confederacy, 
the  summer  and  fall  of  1862  was  the  time  that  it  would 
have  been  manifested,  and  it  was  not.  So,  also,  with  the 
raids  of  General  John  H.  Morgan.  They  will  not  be 


12  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

recounted  in  detail,  as  the  general  histories  sufficiently 
set  them  forth,  but  they  will  be  mentioned  enough  to 
show  that  whenever  Morgan  came  into  Kentucky  he 
encountered  the  Union  soldiers  of  Kentucky,  and  that 
they  caused  these  raids  to  be  less  prolonged,  destructive, 
and  disastrous  to  the  State  than  they  would  have  been 
without  such  defence.  In  like  manner  the  guerilla  evil 
will  be  dealt  with,  in  order  to  show  by  the  records  who 
the  guerillas  were,  and  that  the  Kentucky  Unionists  in 
protecting  their  State  against  them  were  fighting  the 
authorized  agents  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  who, 
being  encouraged  by  their  backing  in  this  respect,  were 
the  more  bold,  and  rendered  the  task  of  defending  the 
State  against  them  more  difficult. 

The  farcical  proceedings  in  the  Confederate  military 
camp  at  Russellville  in  November,  1861,  by  which  Ken 
tucky  was  resolved  out  of  the  Union  on  paper,  will  be 
shown,  for  the  reason  that  on  this  account  the  State  was 
claimed  to  belong  to  the  Confederacy,  and  therefore 
subject  to  the  Confederate  law  of  conscription.  Arrange 
ments  were  made  by  General  Bragg  in  1862  to  enforce 
this  law  in  Kentucky,  as  will  be  shown ;  and  in  Decem 
ber,  1864,  Confederate  General  Lyon  actually  enforced 
it  in  the  western  part  of  the  State,  during  his  temporary 
presence  in  that  section.  (Collins,  i.,  p.  150.) 

The  total  white  population  of  Kentucky  in  1860, 
according  to  the  census  of  that  year,  was  919,484.  Out 
of  this  population,  more  than  80,000  were  enlisted  as 
soldiers  for  the  Union  cause.  According  to  the  best 
authorities,  in  the  neighborhood  of  25,000  went  into  the 
Confederate  armies.  The  historian  Shaler,  in  several 
places,  puts  the  number  at  40,000  (pp.  357,  384);  but,  as 
he  says  that  40,000  left  the  State  for  the  Confederacy  at 
the  very  outstart  (p.  269)  and  afterwards  fixes  this  num 
ber  at  35,000  (p.  282),  either  of  which  is  far  beyond  the 
mark,  his  figures  do  not  seem  to  have  been  well  consid- 


Introductory  13 

ered,  and  the  estimate  given  by  Col.  Ed.  Porter 
Thompson  as  about  25,000  appears  more  reliable. 

A  chapter  will  be  devoted  to  the  numbers  engaged  as 
soldiers  on  both  sides,  from  all  the  States,  in  order  to 
meet  the  oft-repeated  statement  that  Confederate  failures 
were  due  to  "overwhelming  numbers"  of  Federals.  It 
will  be  seen  that,  according  to  the  records,  more  than  a 
million  were  engaged  on  the  Southern  side  against  about 
1,700,000  on  the  National  side.  Instead  of  "overwhelm 
ing  numbers"  at  any  point,  there  was  a  constant  demand 
everywhere  for  more  troops.  At  the  front,  the  lines  far 
from  base  had  to  meet  those  concentrated  from  shorter 
distances.  Along  the  lines  of  communication,  small 
bodies  of  guards  had  to  contend  with  far  larger  raiding 
forces.  In  Kentucky  there  was  sore  need  for  more  troops 
than  could  be  spared  from  the  front  for  protection.  An 
illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the  appeal  for  help  made 
by  Col.  William  H.  Wadsworth,  of  Maysville.  He 
says:  "My  district  has  sent  six  infantry  regiments  to 
the  Federal  army,  and  in  addition  the  Tenth  Cavalry 
was  principally  raised  in  that  district."  Yet  he  says 
all  are  ordered  away,  "and  left  us  naked  to  bands  of 
mounted  rebels."  (War  Records,  series  I,  vol.  16,  pt. 
I,  p.  1146.) 

The  same  conditions  prevailed  everywhere.  The  great 
battle  for  the  Union  was  fought  at  the  front,  where  the 
Confederates  had  the  advantage  of  concentration  on 
shorter  lines,  while  the  battle  for  protection  was  fought 
at  the  rear,  where  bodies  of  raiders  would  fall  unexpect 
edly  upon  exposed  places. 

When  all  the  facts  are  fairly  considered  under  which 
the  National  cause  was  defended,  and  the  war  brought 
to  a  successful  end,  no  words  can  do  justice  to  the 
undaunted  resolution  and  courage  of  those  who,  from 
1 86 1  to  1865,  lent  all  their  energies  to  the  preservation 
of  the  Union. 


H  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

This  work  has  been  submitted  before  its  publication  to 
the  careful  scrutiny  of  Justice  John  M.  Harlan,  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  No  man  living  is 
as  competent  to  speak  concerning  its  character  for  accu 
racy  as  he.  He  was  born  in  Kentucky  and  his  home 
was  the  capital  of  the  State.  He  was  there  associ 
ated,  up  to  1861,  in  the  practice  of  law  with  his  father, 
Hon.  James  Harlan,  also  a  native  of  Kentucky,  and  at 
the  outbreak  of  the  war  one  of  her  most  prominent  and 
honored  citizens.  Both  father  and  son  were  leaders  of 
Union  sentiment.  At  their  law  office  in  Frankfort  were 
held  the  councils  of  the  Union  leaders.  John  M.  Harlan 
also  became  identified  just  at  that  time  with  Louisville, 
and  there  in  the  prime  of  young  manhood  was  captain  of 
one  of  the  military  companies  formed  for  the  defence  of 
the  city  in  the  spring  of  1861.  His  first  service  was  in  con 
nection  with  obtaining  arms  for  the  Kentucky  Unionists, 
a  statement  of  which  appears  in  another  part  of  this  vol 
ume.  In  September,  1861,  with  his  own  company  and 
others,  all  under  command  of  General  W.  T.  Sherman, 
he  advanced  southward  as  far  as  Elizabethtown  to  resist 
the  advance  of  the  Confederates  on  Louisville.  In  the 
same  month  he  declared  his  purpose  to  raise  a  regiment, 
which  was  in  camp  at  Lebanon  in  the  month  following. 
His  regiment  was  a  part  of  General  Thomas's  original 
division  and  assisted  in  driving  Zollicoffer's  troops  from 
Kentucky.  It  participated  in  the  great  campaign  against 
General  Bragg.  Immediately  after,  it  was  found  resist 
ing  the  raiding  of  Confederate  General  John  Morgan. 
In  all  his  career  Colonel  Harlan  was  conspicuous  for 
earnestness  and  vigor.  Physically  and  intellectually  he 
stood  in  the  very  front  of  all  the  activity  of  the  time. 
All  the  events  of  1861  were  familiar  to  him,  and  by 
reason  of  his  close  association  with  the  chiefs  of  the 
Union  leaders,  nearly  all  came  under  his  personal 
observation. 


Introductory  15 

What  is  set  forth,  therefore,  in  this  work  touching  the 
civil  and  military  affairs  of  the  war,  particularly  of  the 
Union  sentiment,  and  of  neutrality,  and  the  action  of 
the  Legislature,  can  be  judged  by  no  one  so  well  qualified 
to  pass  upon  its  accuracy  as  Justice  Harlan.  It  is  with 
peculiar  gratification,  then,  that  the  author  is  enabled  to 
publish  a  letter  received  from  Justice  Harlan  written 
after  he  had  made  a  careful  examination  of  the  manu 
script.  It  is  inserted  as  an  Introduction  at  the  beginning 
of  the  book,  permission  having  been  obtained  to  do  so. 

It  is  proper  to  add  in  this  connection  that,  in  order 
further  to  secure  accuracy,  and  prevent  errors  which 
might  arise  from  wrong  conceptions  and  impressions,  the 
several  chapters  in  this  work  have  been  read  by  others 
who  were  cognizant  of  the  events  dealt  with.  These  have 
been  mentioned  in  the  preface. 

In  every  other  way  the  effort  is  made  to  place  the 
events  of  the  war  pertaining  to  Kentucky  in  a  true  light. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  ISSUE 

IN  the  eventful  period  of  1 860-61  there  was  but  one 
issue  in  Kentucky :  Union  or  Secession.  The  year 
1860  was  a  Presidential  year.  Four  tickets  were  in  the 
field,  Lincoln  and  Hamlin,  Bell  and  Everett,  Douglas 
and  Johnson,  Breckinridge  and  Lane.  The  first  three 
were  all  Union,  as  opposed  to  disunion.  The  last  stood 
for  ultra  Southern  rights.  Its  followers  avowed  the  right 
to  secede,  and  the  purpose  to  secede  under  certain  cir 
cumstances.  Breckinridge  was  a  favorite  son  of  his 
native  State,  Kentucky.  With  many  he  seemed  to  be  an 
idol.  He  was  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  able, 
gifted,  cultivated,  eloquent,  and  endowed  with  personal 
fascinations.  Kentucky  had  many  affiliations  with  the 
other  slave  States.  In  the  campaign  of  1860  the  cause 
of  the  South  was  eloquently  presented  by  the  ablest 
speakers.  It  was  freely  said  that  the  election  of  Lincoln 
would  disrupt  the  Union;  that  secession  would  follow, 
and  the  question  was,  would  Kentucky  ally  herself  with 
the  seceding  Southern  States,  or  remain  in  the  Union? 
All  the  real  and  fancied  wrongs  of  the  South  were  duly 
proclaimed.  It  was  urged  that  slaves  were  property  like 
other  property  and  should  be  treated  as  other  property, 
by  fugitive-slave  laws  in  the  Northern  States  and  by  the 
laws  of  the  Territories.  It  was  declared  that  by  the 
election  of  Lincoln  the  principles  of  his  party  would 
prevail,  and  thus,  with  equal  rights  destroyed  and  the 

16  • 


The  Issue  17 

Constitution  "infracted,"  the  compact  would  be  broken, 
and  nothing  left  to  all  the  slaveholding  States  but  to 
withdraw  from  the  Union,  under  the  doctrine  of  State 
rights. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  contended  that,  whatever 
might  be  the  "wrongs,"  secession  was  a  remedy  for  no 
evil;  that  although  Lincoln  were  elected  President, 
both  houses  of  Congress  would  be  opposed  to  carrying 
out  any  of  the  alleged  extreme  tenets  of  his  party,  and 
he  would  be  powerless  to  do  any  harm  to  the  Southern 
people,  even  if  he  were  so  minded. 

Long  before  1860  there  had  been  discussion  of  the 
possible  dissolution  of  the  Union.  The  differences 
between  the  North  and  the  South  called  forth  from 
Jackson,  when  President,  the  words,  "The  Union  must 
and  shall  be  preserved."  The  question  whether  a  State 
had  the  right  to  secede  had  been  debated  in  societies  for 
years.  Upon  the  stone  which  Kentucky  contributed  to 
the  Washington  monument  was  engraved  the  sentiment 
that  Kentucky,  the  first  admitted  into  the  Union,  would 
be  the  last  to  leave  it. 

But  in  the  administration  of  James  Buchanan  there 
were  events  which  brought  to  the  front,  in  angry  fashion, 
the  old  discussion.  The  troubles  in  Kansas,  and  the 
John  Brown  raid  which  occurred  in  1859,  greatly  inflamed 
popular  feeling,  and  the  complaint  of  unequal  rights  in  the 
Territories  and  failure  to  enforce  fugitive-slave  laws  re 
vived  the  threats  of  secession  and  dissolution  of  the  Union. 

So  rife  became  the  discussion  that  early  in  1860 
"Union"  meetings  were  held  in  various  places  in  Ken 
tucky.  On  January  2d  one  was  held  in  Maysville,  and 
on  the  22d  of  February  there  was  a  large  meeting  at 
Frankfort  at  which  it  was  resolved  that  the  people  of 
Kentucky  were  for  the  Union  and  the  Constitution  in 
tact  ;  that  the  Union  must  and  shall  be  preserved ;  that 
Kentucky  will  redress  her  wrongs  inside  of  the  Union 


1 8  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

and  not  out  of    it.      (See  Collins's  Annals,  pp.  82  and 

83.) 

Also  as  early  as  January  6,  1860,  Rev.  Robert  J. 
Breckinridge,  D.D.,  addressed  a  long  and  eloquent  letter 
to  his  nephew,  Hon.  John  C.  Breckinridge,  who  was 
then  Vice-President,  upon  the  subject  of  the  mainte 
nance  of  the  Union.  Events  of  this  sort,  occurring  in 
1860  before  the  Presidential  nominations  were  made, 
serve  to  show  that  the  subject  was  upon  the  minds  of 
the  people,  growing  out  of  the  continued  agitation  of  the 
question  of  equal  rights  under  the  Constitution.  There 
fore,  after  the  Presidential  election  in  November,  1860, 
when  Abraham  Lincoln  was  elected,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  popular  feeling  was  intensified,  and,  immediately 
following,  meetings  were  held  in  many  places.  In  Col 
lins's  Annals,  p.  84,  it  is  said  that  from  November  igth 
to  December  1st  " Union  meeings  were  held,  usual 
ly  without  distinction  of  party,  in  Frankfort,  Newport, 
Hardinsburg,  Brookville,  Maysville,  Mt.  Sterling,  Vance- 
burg,  and  other  places."  Also,  in  December,  1860, 
Hon.  John  J.  Crittenden,  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
was  urging  compromise  measures  looking  to  the  adjust 
ment  of  difficulties  and  to  avoiding  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union.  It  is  plain,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  in 
1860  the  people  of  Kentucky  were  alive  to  what  was  the 
great  question  of  the  day,  which  was  union  or  secession, 
and  so  positive  did  the  union  sentiment  become,  it  after 
wards  gave  the  name  "Union"  to  its  party. 

This  party,  in  the  year  1860,  nominated  as  its  candi 
date  for  the  office  of  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals 
General  Leslie  Combs,  of  Lexington.  The  candidates 
against  him  were  Clinton  McClarty,  States'  Rights,  and 
R.  R.  Boiling,  Independent.  The  election  took  place 
August  6th,  at  which  Combs,  the  Union  candidate, 
received  68,165  votes;  McClarty,  44,942;  Boiling,  10,971; 
the  majority  for  Combs  over  both  being  12,252,  and  his 


The  Issue  19 

plurality  over  the  Southern  Rights  candidate  23,223. 
(Collins's  Annals,  p.  84.)  In  the  same  year,  1860,  in 
November,  the  Presidential  election  took  place.  At  this 
election  Bell  and  Everett  received  66,016  votes;  Douglas 
and  Johnson, 2 5, 644;  Breckinridge  and  Lane,  52,836;  Lin 
coln  and  Hamlin,  1,366.  The  Douglas  men  and  the  Bell 
men  and  the  Lincoln  men  were  all  alike  Unionists,  and 
their  votes  added  together,  amounting  to  93,026,  repre 
sent  the  Union  vote,  as  against  52,836  for  Breckin 
ridge.  (Collins's  Annals,  p.  84.)  These  events  of  1860 
show  that,  even  in  that  year,  the  issue  was  made  up. 
The  live  question  of  the  hour  was  union  or  secession, 
and  it  is  plain  that  the  great  majority  of  the  voters  of 
Kentucky  favored  the  Union  and  were  opposed  to 
secession. 

As  the  eye  rests  upon  the  map  of  the  United  States, 
the  pivotal  situation  of  Kentucky  in  the  Civil  War  is  at 
once  seen.  Kentucky  was  not  upon  the  western  flank, 
like  Missouri;  nor  was  it  enveloped  by  free  territory, 
like  Maryland,  with  no  natural  boundary.  It  was  cen 
tral,  and  bounded  along  the  north  for  seven  hundred 
miles  by  the  Ohio  River,  then  unbridged.  Kentucky  was 
a  slave  State,  and  much  like  the  States  of  Virginia  and 
Tennessee  in  the  character  and  sentiments  of  her  people. 

In  the  division  which  took  place  in  1 860-61  there  were 
many  natural  reasons  for  the  Kentucky  people  to  side 
with  the  South,  and,  in  the  look  to  her  at  that  time, 
there  was  intense  anxiety.  Her  decision  was  fraught 
with  weighty  consequences.  As  she  did  not  join  in  the 
Southern  movement  the  advantages  to  the  cause  of  the 
Union  were  manifest  in  the  results  which  followed.  If 
the  decision  had  been  different  the  results  can  only  be  a 
matter  of  conjecture,  but  the  difficulties  of  suppressing 
the  rebellion  would  certainly  have  been  enhanced. 

It  is  possible,  though  not  at  all  certain,  that  an  act  of 
secession,  however  brought  about,  might  have  carried 


20  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

the  people  with  it.  An  illustration  of  this  is  found  in 
the  career  of  General  Robert  E.  Lee,  who  was  for  the 
Union  until  his  State  seceded  and  then  he  followed  his 
State.  Whatever  might  have  been  the  temper  of  the 
Kentucky  people  under  such  circumstances,  it  was  a 
cause  for  rejoicing,  on  the  one  hand,  that  secession  was 
not  adopted,  and,  to  the  other  side,  a  matter  of  sore 
disappointment. 

As  Kentucky  was  a  slave  State,  it  seemed  to  be  ex 
pected  by  the  seceding  States  that  she  would,  without 
fail,  unite  with  them  in  the  Southern  Confederacy.  This 
expectation  led  to  much  urgency  and  earnest  solicitation 
on  the  part  of  the  seceding  States.  Strong  arguments 
were  presented,  and  all  the  inducements  offered,  but  with 
out  avail.  The  records  of  the  period  do  not  show  that 
any  outside  influences  were  brought  to  bear  to  help  out 
the  Kentucky  Unionists.  It  would  seem  that  the  lead 
ers  of  the  Union  cause  in  Kentucky  were  regarded  as 
sufficient  for  the  occasion.  No  abler  men  in  the  country 
could  have  been  found  to  champion  the  cause  than  were 
then  exerting  all  their  energies  in  the  State,  and  they 
were  left  to  fight  out  the  battle  without  aid. 

It  is  a  plain  proposition  that  the  people  of  Kentucky, 
with  a  clear  and  intelligent  perception  of  the  situation, 
deliberately  rejected  secession,  and  firmly  resolved  to 
remain  in  the  Union.  This  has  been  agreed  to  by  the 
historians,  and  it  was  established  by  the  voting  of  1860 
and  1861,  which  voting  of  1861  will  be  fully  detailed. 
Yet  the  grossest  injustice  has  been  done  to  them,  and 
especially  the  leaders,  by  charges  of  duplicity,  and  even 
treachery,  in  the  practical  carrying  out  of  their  repeat 
edly  expressed  wishes,  and  in  defeating  the  persistent 
efforts  to  frustrate  their  will. 

It  is  stated  in  Collins's  History  of  Kentucky  (vol.  i., 
p.  333)  that  "A  vast  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State 
were  devoted  to  the  cause  of  the  Union."  That  is  true. 


The  Issue  21 

It  is  proved  by  the  voting  and  the  volunteering.  The 
statement  on  the  next  page,  however,  is  not  true.  There 
are  no  grounds  whatever  for  saying : — 

"  But  it  must  not  be  less  clearly  apparent  to  the  observer 
that  a  decided  majority  of  her  people  believed  honestly  in  the 
abstract  right  to  secede,  and  a  vast  majority  were  firmly  op 
posed  to  the  attempt  to  coerce  the  people  of  the  State  to  remain 
under  the  control  of  a  federative  government  which  had  be 
come  unacceptable  to  them." 

There  is  no  authority  for  this  statement.  It  is  simply 
an  assertion.  It  is  demonstrated  by  the  voting  that  the 
people  were  Union  in  sentiment,  but  there  is  no  ground 
for  saying  they  believed  in  State  supremacy ;  there  is  no 
evidence  of  it  and  no  way  to  prove  it.  The  same  writer 
complacently  says  that  nearly  all  Kentuckians  held 
firmly,  as  a  cardinal  principle,  the  doctrine  of  the  Resolu 
tions  of  1/98,  that  a  State  had  the  right  to  withdraw  from 
the  Union,  and  that  it  was  a  crime  to  attempt  to  compel 
the  State  to  remain  a  part  of  the  United  States. 

By  this  ingenious  assertion  of  a  thing  which  was  never 
proved  and  not  susceptible  of  proof,  the  effort  is  made 
to  show  that  the  Kentucky  people  sided  with  the  States 
which  actually  seceded,  although  they  might  hold  that 
the  movement  was  "unwise  and  ill-advised."  It  is  the 
oft-asserted  claim  that,  while  the  Kentucky  people  refused 
to  secede  themselves,  they  supported  in  sentiment  those 
who  did  secede,  which  claim  was  not  only  folly  but  abso 
lutely  untrue.  The  evidence  upon  the  subject  estab 
lishes  exactly  the  contrary  proposition.  The  Unionists 
of  Kentucky  repeatedly  based  their  opposition  to  seces 
sion  upon  the  saying  which  became  proverbial  in  1860 
and  1861  that  "secession  is  a  remedy  for  no  evil,  but  an 
aggravation  of  all."  They  saw  this  as  clearly  as  the 
people  of  any  State  in  the  Union.  To  say  that  they 
believed  in  secession  as  a  right,  admits  that  they  had 


22  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

information  on  the  subject,  and  so  they  had.  They  had 
heard  the  question  discussed.  The  Resolutions  of  1798 
were  familiar  to  them,  but  when  the  moment  came  for 
the  actual  exercise  of  the  claimed  right  they  turned  away 
from  it,  as  a  remedy  for  nothing  and  the  greatest  evil 
that  could  befall  the  country.  They  understood  that  a 
union  had  been  formed  whereby  the  United  States 
passed  out  of  a  confederation  into  a  union  and  that  it 
was  never  contemplated  that  any  one  State  could,  at 
will,  destroy  the  whole  fabric.  In  addition  to  this,  they 
understood  the  reasons  against  secession  with  a  peculiarly 
clear  perception.  The  people  of  1861  had  heard  their 
fathers  tell  of  the  early  troubles,  about  the  navigation  of 
the  lower  waters.  The  only  outlet  of  the  State,  in  the 
early  days,  was  the  Mississippi  River.  If  there  were 
obstacles  in  that  navigation  it  vitally  affected  all  the  pros 
pects  of  Kentucky.  If  the  country  at  the  mouth  of  that 
river  was  controlled  by  Spain,  or  France,  or  England, 
free  communication  with  the  sea  was  cut  off.  All  this 
was  familiar  to  Kentuckians. 

Now,  if  the  State  of  Louisiana  could  withdraw  from 
the  Union  and  set  up  an  absolutely  independent  govern 
ment  and  take  its  place  as  one  in  the  family  of  nations, 
which  was  the  claim  of  secession,  then  it  could  enter  into 
alliance  of  any  kind  it  saw  fit  with  any  foreign  power, 
and  thus  the  interests  of  all  who  depended  upon  the 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi  might  be  affected,  and  so 
much  affected  as  to  destroy  them  hopelessly.  It  is  an 
imputation  upon  the  intelligence  of  any  people  to  say 
they  believed  that  the  State  of  Louisiana  had  the  right 
to  so  jeopardize  the  whole  country  of  the  Mississippi 
Valley.  The  entire  recklessness  of  the  scheme  of  seces 
sion  was  understood  by  the  people.  In  every  town  and 
village  in  the  State  there  were  men  of  thought  and 
sound  sense  who,  by  writing  and  speaking  and  in  conver 
sation,  presented  the  ruinous  consequences  of  secession, 


The  Issue  23 

and  the  results  were  shown  at  the  polls.  Notwithstand 
ing  the  efforts  to  fire  the  popular  heart  with  the  portrayal 
of  the  "wrongs"  by  the  North  upon  the  South,  the  con 
clusion  remained  that  secession  was  a  remedy  for  no  evil, 
but  an  aggravation  of  all. 

The  same  recklessness  of  statement  is  found  in  Collins 
(p.  349)  where  it  is  asserted  that  all  the  dire  predictions 
made  of  the  barbarous  intentions  of  the  National  govern 
ment  were  fulfilled  when  the  rebellion  was  crushed.  The 
language  is: — 

"  In  April,  1865,  the  war  ceased  with  the  entire  and  com 
plete  subjugation  of  the  South.  All  that  the  States'  Rights 
men  had  prophesied  would  be  accomplished  if  unresisted,  all 
that  the  Union  men  had  indignantly  denied  to  be  the  objects 
of  the  war,  was  accomplished.  The  South  was  conquered,  the 
slaves  were  freed,  and  negro  political  equality  recognized 
throughout  the  nation." 

Thus  the  effort  is  made  to  have  the  historic  page  perpet 
uate  the  double  falsehood  that  the  Unionists  brought  on 
the  war,  and  then  carried  out  all  that  was  predicted. 

In  the  course  of  this  work  quotations  will  be  made  of 
what  had  been  prophesied  by  the  States'  Rights  men, 
and  the  reader  of  to-day  can  determine,  as  he  contem 
plates  the  Southern  States  at  present  and  for  years  past, 
whether  the  direful  predictions  were  fulfilled. 

With  an  overweening  confidence  in  their  military 
prowess,  the  Southern  States  did  that  which  necessarily 
and  inevitably  produced  war.  These  States  set  them 
selves  up  as  independent  territory,  open  to  alliances  of 
any  and  all  kinds  with  foreign  powers.  This  of  itself,  if 
tolerated,  was  a  death-blow  to  the  American  Republic. 
They,  also,  forcibly  and  otherwise,  took  possession 
of  all  the  property  belonging  to  the  United  States 
within  their  limits.  This  of  itself  was  enough  to 
cause  the  Government  to  resort  to  force  or  else  ac- 


24  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

knowledge  itself  too  weak  to  look  after  its  own  interests.1 

In  the  course  of  the  war  it  became  apparent  that  one 
of  the  sources  of  strength  in  the  South  was  the  ownership 
of  the  negroes.  Therefore,  they  were  liberated.  This 
was  one  of  the  consequences  of  the  war. 

The  harmful  results  of  the  war,  ending  as  it  did,  may 
all  be  catalogued,  and  even  exaggerated ;  but  let  it  be  sup 
posed  the  Federal  troops  had  been  overcome,  and  the 
Confederacy  established,  where  could  be  found  a  genius 
so  stupendous  for  folly  as  to  be  equal  to  the  task  of  so 
portraying  the  consequences,  even  in  imagination,  as  to 
make  conditions  better  than  now  exist?  Imagination 
might  picture  how  deplorable  they  would  be,  but  it 
would  be  impossible  to  conceive  of  a  broken-up  republic 
giving  to  the  inhabitants  of  this  land  the  blessings  and 
the  prosperity  and  the  honor  and  credit  which  they  now 
enjoy. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  when  the  people  of  Kentucky,  in 
their  meetings  of  all  sorts,  resolved  that  secession  was  a 
remedy  for  nothing,  but  an  aggravation  of  all  evils,  that 
it  was  subversion  of  order  and  a  step  towards  anarchy, 
and  when  they  cast  their  suffrages  for  the  Union,  they 
had  a  clear  perception  of  the  real  situation,  and  a  clear 
understanding  of  the  issue  that  was  before  them  and  the 
whole  country. 

The  same  writer,  upon  the  assumption  that  the  politi 
cal  faith  of  the  Kentucky  people  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
Resolutions  of  1798,  that  "each  State  was  the  final  judge 
of  the  remedies  it  would  pursue  when  aggrieved  by  the 
action  of  the  Federal  government, ' '  goes  on  to  say : 

"Basing  upon  that  principle  of  political  faith  and  upon  that 
other  principle  which  had  become  a  political  axiom,  that  no 
government  ought  to  exist  save  by  consent  freely  given  of  the 
governed,  they  almost  unanimously  drew  the  corollary  that 

1  See  Appendix,  §  2,  p. 


The  Issue  25 

when  the  people  of  a  State  became  convinced  that  the  Federal 
Union  no  longer  protected  them  and  guarded  their  rights  they 
had,  as  a  State,  an  unchallengeable  right  to  withdraw  from  it." 
(Collins,  i.  p.  336.) 

This  quotation  is  made  to  show  that  even  Confederate 
writers  (the  author  of  the  quotation  was  a  Kentucky 
secessionist  and  a  general  in  the  Confederate  army)  con 
cede  that  the  people  have  some  rights,  that  it  is  a  politi 
cal  axiom  that  government  ought  to  be  with  the  consent 
of  the  governed ;  and  yet,  although  the  Kentucky  people 
were  Unionists  by  a  "vast  majority,"  and  voted  to  stay 
in  the  Union,  and  against  going  out  of  it,  still  the 
Southern  leaders  vilified  them  and  their  leaders,  and 
applied  bitter  epithets  to  them,  and  endeavored  to  treat 
them  as  without  any  rights  at  all,  when  the  effort  to  drag 
the  State  into  secession  proved  abortive. 

Surely,  if  it  could  be  true  that  the  State  had  the  right 
to  withdraw  from  the  Union  at  will,  it  must  be  true  that 
it  had  the  right  to  refuse  to  do  so;  yet  when  the  issue 
was  up  and  discussed,  and  plainly  understood,  and  de 
cided  in  favor  of  the  Union,  the  friends  of  the  Confeder 
acy  in  Kentucky  went  South  and  did  all  in  their  power 
to  place  their  own  State  in  a  false  position,  and  actually 
went  through  the  form  of  declaring  on  paper  that  Ken 
tucky  was  out  of  the  Union  and  a  member  of  the 
Confederacy. 

It  is  proper,  and  it  is  due  to  the  memory  of  the  great 
men  who  led  the  hosts  of  Kentucky  Unionists  in  the 
troubled  times  of  the  Civil  War,  that  the  records  of  the 
circumstances  under  which  they  acted,  now  existing  only 
in  scattered  form,  should  be  consecutively  narrated  so 
that  they  may  be  known  to  all  general  readers. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   LEGISLATURE 

IN  order  to  understand  the  events  of  the  winter  and 
spring  of  1861,  the  character  and  work  of  the  Legis 
lature  which  sat  in  the  months  of  January,  February, 
April,  and  May  must  be  borne  clearly  in  mind.  The 
members  of  that  Legislature  had  been  elected  in  the  year 
1859.  Therefore,  they  were  elected  before  the  question 
of  union  or  disunion  actually  came  up,  as  it  did  in  1860 
and  1861.  It  was  not  until  the  Presidential  nominations 
were  made  in  1860  that  the  question  became  a  serious 
one.  The  nomination  of  Lincoln  and  the  possibility  of 
his  election  brought  out  distinctly  the  threat  of  secession. 
In  the  speeches  of  that  campaign  it  was  declared  the 
Southern  States  would  withdraw  from  the  Union  if  Lin 
coln  should  be  elected,  and  it  became  a  matter  of  anxious 
inquiry  what  would  Kentucky  do  in  that  event? 

Soon  after  the  November  election,  at  which  Lincoln  was 
elected,  South  Carolina  seceded.  In  the  same  month,  De 
cember,  the  Governor  of  Kentucky  called  a  special  session 
of  the  Legislature  to  meet  January  17,  1861.  His  message 
to  that  body  showed  unmistakably  his  secession  proclivi 
ties.  He  declared  that  the  verdict  of  the  election  in  No 
vember  was  a  deliberate  expression  of  the  purpose  of  the 
North  to  administer  the  government  detrimentally  to  the 
South ;  that  Kentucky  will  not  submit  to  inequalities  in  the 
Union,  and  the  question  is,  what  will  be  the  attitude  of 
Kentucky?  He  mentioned  the  fact  that  Virginia  and  Ten 
nessee  had  referred  the  whole  subject  to  the  people,  and 
said: 

26 


The  Legislature  27 

"  I  therefore  submit  to  your  consideration  the  propriety  of 
providing  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  a  convention  to  be 
assembled  at  an  early  day,  to  which  shall  be  referred  for  full 
and  final  determination  the  future  of  Federal  and  interstate 
relations  of  Kentucky." 

He  further  said : 

"  Kentucky  will  not  be  an  indifferent  observer  of  the  force 
policy"  that  "the  seceding  States  have  not,  in  their  haste  and 
inconsiderate  action,  our  approval,  but  their  cause  is  our  right 
and  they  have  our  sympathies.  The  people  of  Kentucky  will 
never  stand  by  with  arms  folded  while  those  States  are  strug 
gling  for  their  constitutional  rights  and  resisting  oppression, 
or  being  subjugated  to  an  antislavery  government";  that  "the 
idea  of  coercion,  when  applied  to  great  political  communities, 
is  revolting  to  a  free  people,  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  our  insti 
tutions,  and  if  successful  would  endanger  the  liberties  of  the 
people."  {House  Journal.} 

He  also  urged  the  necessity  for  arming,  equipping,  and 
providing  munitions  of  war  for  the  "State  Guard." 

He  also  desired  the  Legislature  to  declare  its  uncondi 
tional  disapprobation  of  force  in  any  form  against  the 
seceded  States.  The  tone  of  the  message  indicates  a 
confident  feeling  that  all  that  was  asked  would  be 
granted.  It  appeared  then  that  it  might  reasonably  be 
regarded  as  certain  that  the  "Southern  Rights"  sentiment 
would  predominate  in  the  Legislature.  It  had  elected 
John  C.  Breckinridge  to  the  United  States  Senate  over 
Joshua  F.  Bell,  by  a  vote  of  81  to  52.  The  Unionists 
had  but  little  hope,  and  were  extremely  anxious.  Al 
though  the  people  had  voted  in  the  August  election, 
1860,  and  in  the  November  election,  1860,  against  the 
Southern  movement,  no  one  could  tell  what  impression 
actual  secession  had  made  upon  their  minds.  Further 
more,  if  they  were  called  upon  to  vote  for  delegates  to  a 
Sovereignty  convention,  great  excitement  and  possible 
violence  might  be  expected.  The  views  of  the  Unionists 


28  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

were  expressed  by  George  D.  Prentice  in  the  Louisville 
Journal,  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  consider  the  question 
of  secession ;  that  secession  was  not  necessary,  but  adher 
ence  to  the  Union  was;  that  hasty  and  inconsiderate 
action  would  be  contrary  to  the  Constitution  and  simply 
revolutionary.  In  this  he  was  supported  by  the  Gov 
ernor's  own  words  in  his  message,  where  he  said,  "The 
hasty  and  inconsiderate  action  of  the  seceding  States  has 
not  our  approval."  In  other  words,  the  calling  of  a 
Sovereignty  convention  "at  an  early  day"  would  itself 
be,  and  would  also  lead  to,  hasty  and  inconsiderate 
action,  which  was  not  desirable.  Under  these  conditions 
of  hope  and  fear  and  uncertainty  the  Legislature  met, 
January  17,  1861.  Its  sittings  that  winter  and  spring 
were  as  follows:- — 

From  January  i/th  to  February  nth,  when  there  was 
an  adjournment  to  the  2Oth  of  March. 

On  March  2Oth  it  reassembled  and  sat  until  April  4th, 
when  it  adjourned  without  day. 

The  Governor  very  promptly  called  another  special 
session  for  May  6th,  on  which  day  it  assembled  and  sat 
until  May  24th,  when  it  adjourned  and  its  work  was  at  an 
end. 

From  that  time  until  September  2d  there  was  no 
Legislature.  On  that  day  another  Legislature  came 
in  which  had  been  elected  at  the  preceding  August 
election. 

What  was  done  by  the  Legislature  which  sat  in  the  win 
ter  and  spring  of  1861,  and  on  which  so  much  depended? 
The  only  answer  is,  practically  nothing,  considering 
the  momentous  issues  at  stake.  Memorable  as  the  occa 
sion  was,  that  body  is  far  more  noted  for  what  it  did  not 
do  than  for  what  it  did.  The  main  object  for  which  it 
was  assembled  was  to  provide  for  a  convention  to  consider 
secession,  but  no  convention  was  called.  Nor  was  there 
any  act,  or  joint  resolution,  passed  on  the  subject  of 


The  Legislature  29 

neutrality  or  coercion,  which  were  also  the  themes  of  the 
hour. 

The  historians  have  conveyed  the  idea  that  neutrality 
was  adopted  by  the  Legislature,  but  this  is  error.  Shaler 
in  his  history  says : 

"The  Legislature  of  Kentucky  caught  this  universal 
will  of  the  citizens  for  neutrality,  and  proceeded  to  shape 
its  action  accordingly." 

This  would  indicate  legislative  action,  but  there  was 
none  that  had  the  approval  of  both  houses  so  as  to  be 
come  the  act  of  the  Legislature. 

On  the  2 ist  day  of  January  Hon.  Geo.  W.  Ewing 
introduced  resolutions  in  the  lower  House,  of  which  he 
was  a  member,  the  first  of  which  expressed  regret  that 
the  States  of  New  York,  Ohio,  Maine,  and  Massachusetts 
had,  by  their  Legislatures,  tendered  men  and  money  to 
be  used  in  coercing  the  seceded  States.  The  second 
requested  the  Governor  to  notify  the  executives  of  those 
States  that  whenever  armed  forces  were  sent  for  the  pur 
pose  of  forcing  the  people  of  the  South  to  the  extremity 
of  submission  or  resistance,  "the  people  of  Kentucky, 
uniting  with  their  brethren  of  the  South,  will,  as  one 
man,  resist  such  invasion  of  the  soil  of  the  South,  at  all 
hazard,  and  to  the  last  extremity."  These  resolutions 
were  adopted  only  by  the  lower  House. 

The  historian  General  George  B.  Hodge,  who  was  a 
member  of  that  Legislature  and  went  into  the  Confed 
eracy,  writing  in  Collins's  History  of  Kentucky,  is  wholly 
misleading  in  his  mention  of  these  resolutions,  conveying 
the  idea  that  they  were  adopted  by  the  Legislature.  (  Col 
lins,  I,  341.)  The  truth  is,  they  passed  the  lower  House 
of  the  Legislature  only,  and  were  not  acted  upon  at  all  by 
the  Senate  (Collins,  i,  86)  (House  Journal,  1861,  p.  69). 

On  the  2$th  day  of  January  a  joint  resolution  was 
passed  favoring  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  the  calling  of  a  convention  from  the 


30  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

various  States  for  the  consideration  of  such  an  amend 
ment.  Also,  on  the  2Qth  of  January,  a  joint  resolution 
was  passed  appointing  commissioners  to  the  peace  con 
ference  to  be  held  at  Washington.  The  commissioners 
appointed  were  General  Wm.  O.  Butler,  James  B.  Clay, 
Joshua  F.  Bell,  Charles  S.  Morehead,  Charles  A.  Wick- 
liffe,  and  James  Guthrie.  (Acts  1861,  47.)  These 
were  all  distinguished  and  able  men.  The  conference  was 
composed  of  such  men  from  twenty-one  States,  and  sat 
from  February  4th  to  February  27th,  but  accomplished 
nothing. 

On  the  29th  day  of  January  Hon.  R.  T.  Jacob  intro 
duced  a  resolution  in  the  lower  House,  of  which  he  was 
a  member,  upon  the  subject  of  neutrality,  which  had  at 
that  early  date  come  to  be  popular.  The  resolution  was: 

"That  the  proper  position  of  Kentucky  is  that  of  a 
mediator  between  the  sections,  and  that  as  an  umpire  she 
should  remain  firm  and  impartial  in  this  day  of  trial  to 
our  beloved  country,  that  by  her  counsels  and  mediation 
she  may  aid  in  restoring  peace  and  harmony  and  broth 
erly  love  throughout  the  land." 

That  was  the  idea  of  neutrality  indorsed  by  the  Union 
ists  of  Kentucky,  but  no  action  was  had  upon  the 
resolution. 

Then,  upon  the  nth  of  February,  joint  resolutions 
were  passed  under  the  following  title: — "Resolutions 
declaring  further  action  by  the  Legislature  on  political 
affairs  unnecessary  and  inexpedient  at  this  time." 

The  resolutions  were  as  follows: 

"  Resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Kentucky: 

"  That  the  people  of  Kentucky  view  with  the  most  lively 
apprehension  the  dangers  that  now  environ  the  Union  and 
threaten  its  perpetuity; 

"  Resolved,  That  we  appeal  to  our  Southern  brethren  to  stay 
the  work  of  secession,  to  return  and  make  one  mighty  effort 


The  Legislature  31 

to  perpetuate  the  noble  work  of  our  forefathers,  hallowed  by 
the  recollection  of  a  thousand  noble  deeds; 

"  Resolved,  That  we  protest  against  the  use  of  force  or  coer 
cion  by  the  general  government  against  the  seceding  States  as 
unwise  and  inexpedient  and  tending  to  the  destruction  of  our 
common  country." 

The  next  and  last  resolution  of  the  series  favored  the 
calling  of  a  National  convention  to  amend  the  National 
Constitution,  and  concluded  with  these  words: 

"It  is  unnecessary  and  inexpedient  for  this  Legislature  to 
take  any  further  action  on  this  subject  at  the  present  time,  and, 
as  an  evidence  of  the  sincerity  and  good  faith  of  our  proposi 
tions  for  an  adjustment,  and  our  expression  of  devotion  to  the 
Union  and  desire  for  its  preservation,  Kentucky  awaits  with 
great  solicitude  the  responses  from  her  sister  States. 

On  the  4th  of  April  the  Legislature  passed  an  act  to 
amend  the  militia  law,  the  only  section  of  which  that  it  is 
important  to  mention  provided  that  any  member  of  the 
State  Guard  shall  have  the  right  to  withdraw  therefrom 
without  the  consent  of  any  officer. 

On  that  day,  April  4th,  the  Legislature  adjourned,  but 
it  was  called  in  special  session  again  May  6th.  Between 
these  two  dates  Fort  Sumter  was  fired  upon  and  Presi 
dent  Lincoln  called  for  75,000  troops  and  the  Governor 
of  Kentucky  rudely  responded,  refusing  to  comply  with 
the  call  for  the  quota  due  from  Kentucky. 

The  Legislature  meeting  after  such  exciting  events  was 
expected  to  act  in  some  resolute  and  positive  manner, 
but  nothing  was  done  in  any  way  looking  towards  seces 
sion.  On  the  contrary,  the  influence  of  the  Unionists 
became  more  apparent  than  at  the  former  sessions. 

That  there  was  not  harmony  in  the  counsels  of  those 
who  favored  secession  is  apparent  from  a  letter,  which  is 
found  in  the  records,  from  General  Humphrey  Marshall 
to  Governor  Magoffin,  written  from  Virginia  March  23, 
1862.  General  Marshall,  having  left  Kentucky  for  the 


32  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Confederacy,  wrote  to  Governor  Magoffin,  rebuking  his 
failure  to  take  action  in  1861  and  suggesting  that,  even 
at  that  date,  March,  1862,  "circumstances  offered  a  new 
and  favorable  opportunity  to  appeal  successfully  to  the 
people  of  Kentucky." 

Referring  to  the  spring  of  1861,  he  says: 

"You  cannot  fail  to  remember  the  pertinacity  with 
which  I  urged  you  not  to  call  that  extra  session  of  the 
Legislature  which  stripped  you  of  power,  and  actually 
usurped  your  constitutional  functions  of  commander  of 
the  military  forces  of  the  State." 

General  Marshall  was  an  active  promoter  of  secession, 
and,  in  the  summer  of  1861,  before  complaints  were  marde 
of  the  Unionists  going  into  camp  at  Camp  Dick  Robin 
son,  had  organized  in  Owen  County  quite  a  force  in  the 
interests  of  the  South,  which  followed  him  out  of  the 
State  in  the  fall  of  1861.  In  his  pertinaciously  advising 
against  the  calling  of  the  extra  session  of  the  Legislature 
for  May  6th  he  doubtless  acted  in  concert  with  others 
like  himself  who  had  lost  all  hope  of  getting  favorable 
action  from  that  Legislature  and  proposed  to  proceed 
independently  of  it. 

At  the  May  session,  May  i6th,  resolutions  were  passed 
by  the  lower  House : 

"That  this  State  and  the  citizens  thereof  should  take  no 
part  in  the  civil  war  now  being  waged,  except  as  mediator  and 
friends  to  the  belligerent  parties,  and  that  Kentucky  should, 
during  the  contest,  occupy  the  position  of  strict  neutrality. 

1 '  Resolved,  That  the  act  of  the  Governor  in  refusing  to  fur 
nish  troops  or  military  force  upon  the  call  of  the  executive 
authority  of  the  United  States,  under  existing  circumstances,  is 
approved. ' ' 

While  these  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  House, 
there  was  no  concurrence  by  the  Senate,  and  therefore 
they  only  reflected  the  mind  of  the  one  body. 


The  Legislature  33 

It  will  be  observed  that,  in  both  resolutions,  the  lan 
guage  is  very  guarded — the  first  provides  for  mediatorial, 
not  armed,  neutrality;  and  the  second  approves  the 
refusal  by  the  Governor  to  furnish  the  troops  "under 
existing  circumstances  " 

What  these  circumstances  were  will  be  more  fully 
shown  in  the  two  chapters  following,  but  they  were,  in 
substance,  that  a  popular  stand  had  been  taken  in  favor 
of  neutrality,  and  to  furnish  troops  would  be  inconsistent 
therewith.  It  was  the  same  position  as  that  taken  by 
the  Union  State  Committee  in  April,  approving  the 
Governor's  refusal  upon  the  ground  that  the  present 
duty  of  Kentucky  is  to  remain  neutral.  In  both  in 
stances  there  was  a  wise,  sensible,  and  patriotic  motive, 
as  will  be  shown,  there  being  a  possibility  at  that  time 
that  if  Kentucky  did  not  ally  herself  with  the  seceding 
States  this  might  be  such  a  turning  weight  in  the  scale 
as  to  avert  the  actual  calamity  of  war.  But  this  expres 
sion,  as  stated,  was  only  by  the  lower  House,  there 
being  no  joint  action  by  the  Senate. 

At  this  session  two  very  significant  acts  were  passed. 
On  the  24th  of  May  it  was  enacted  that  the  State  should 
be  armed.  For  that  purpose  a  "military  board"  was 
constituted,  consisting  of  Governor  Magoffin,  Samuel  Gill, 
George  T.  Wood,  General  Peter  Dudley,  and  John  B. 
Temple. 

The  majority  of  this  board  were  Unionists.  It  was 
authorized  to  borrow  $1,600,000  for  the  purchase  of  arms 
and  munitions  of  war  to  be  furnished  equally  to  the 
Home  Guard  companies  and  the  State  Guard  companies. 
The  importance  of  this  appears  when,  as  will  be  hereafter 
shown,  the  State  Guard  organization  was  largely  in 
sympathy  with  the  South,  while  the  Home  Guards  were 
Unionists. 

The  act  also  provided  that  the  members  of  the  State 
Guard  companies  as  well  as  of  the  Home  Guard  companies 


\ 


UNIVERSITY   J 

9 


34  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

should  take  the  same  oath  as  the  officers,  requiring  fidel 
ity  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
The  act  further  provided : 

"  That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  author 
ize  said  board  or  any  of  the  military  organizations  created  by 
the  militia  laws  of  the  State  to  use  in  any  wise  the  arms  and 
munitions  of  war  herein  authorized  to  be  purchased,  or  those 
already  belonging  to  the  State,  against  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  nor  against  the  Confederate  States,  unless  in 
protecting  our  soil  from  unlawful  invasion — it  being  the  inten 
tion  alone  that  said  arms  and  munitions  of  war  are  to  be  used 
for  the  sole  defence  of  Kentucky."  (Acts  1861.) 

The  other  significant  act  was  that  the  next  sitting  of 
the  Legislature  should  be  on  the  first  Monday  in  Sep 
tember,  instead  of  the  January  following.  It  thus  ap 
pears  that,  contrary  to  the  expectations  of  both  sides, 
the  Legislature  which  had  been  elected  in  1859,  anc* 
was  supposed  to  be  of  like  political  complexion  with  the 
Governor,  passed  away  without  bringing  upon  the  State 
any  complications.  The  members  were  so  evenly  divided 
in  sentiment  that  they  could  do  nothing  radical.  The 
general  result  was  bitter  disappointment  to  the  Governor 
and  a  cause  of  rejoicing  to  the  Unionists,  who  believed 
that  they  were  in  the  majority  in  the  State,  and  that  they 
would  certainly  elect  a  Union  Legislature  at  the  ensuing 
August  election,  which  was  done  by  a  great  and  over 
whelming  majority. 

General  Hodge,  writing  in  Collins's  History  of  Ken 
tucky,  referring  to  the  expression  of  opinion  of  the  2ist 
of  January  already  mentioned,  and  speaking  of  the  entire 
work  of  that  Legislature  sitting  in  the  winter  and  spring 
of  1861,  says: 

"Beyond  this  expression  of  opinion  the  Legislature 

declined  to  go." 
He  further  says : 


The  Legislature  35 

"The  Legislature  had  done  nothing  to  prepare  the  State 
for  the  awful  ordeal  which  was  before  her,  save  to  provide  a 
few  arms,  half  of  which  were  distributed  to  the  State  Guard 
and  subsequently  passed  into  the  Southern  armies,  and  half  of 
which  were  distributed  to  Home  Guards  and  were  used  exclu 
sively  in  aid  of  the  Federal  government;  and  yet  in  no  delibe 
rative  or  parliamentary  body  in  the  whole  country  had  the 
exciting  questions  of  the  day  been  more  earnestly  or  more 
fully  discussed."  (Collins,  i.  341.) 

As  there  could  be  no  secession  of  Kentucky  without 
the  calling  of  a  convention  by  the  Legislature,  and  as 
the  danger  had  passed,  it  is  interesting  to  inquire  by  what 
means  and  instrumentalities  did  the  Kentucky  Unionists 
not  only  save  their  State  from  secession,  but  also  from 
even  the  first  step  in  that  direction. 

To  accomplish  the  result  of  having  that  Legislature  pass 
through  all  its  meetings  without  doing  the  specific  thing 
for  which  Governor  Magofifin  assembled  it,  called  for 
the  highest  exercise  of  patriotic  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
best  and  wisest  men  of  the  State,  irrespective  of  party 
affiliations. 

The  Bell  and  Everett  party  and  the  Douglas  party 
joined  hands.  Each  arranged  to  meet  in  convention  in 
Louisville  on  the  8th  day  of  January,  1861.  The  two 
conventions  met  on  that  day.  The  delegates  of  the  Bell 
party  were  called  to  order  by  Judge  William  F.  Bullock, 
of  Louisville,  and  John  B.  Huston,  of  Clark -County,  was 
made  temporary  chairman.  The  permanent  chairman 
was  John  L.  Helm.  Conspicuous  in  the  meeting  were 
Hon.  Garrett  Davis,  of  Paris;  Judge  Warner  L.  Under 
wood,  of  Bowling  Green;  George  H.  Yeaman,  of  Owens- 
boro;  Joshua  F.  Bell,  of  Danville;  J.  M.  Shackelford, 
of  Madisonville;  W.  C.  Goodloe,  of  Lexington;  Alfred 
Allen,  of  Breckinridge  County;  Phillip  Swigert,  of  Frank 
fort;  General  Leslie  Combs,  of  Lexington;  W.  R. 
Grigsby,  of  Nelson;  John  H.  McHenry,  of  Owensboro; 


36  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

R.  J.  Browne,  of  Springfield;  Henry  Grider,  of  Bowling 
Green;  Colonel  Thomas  L.  Crittenden,  and  Judge  Zach- 
ariah  Wheat,  of  Columbia.  Speeches  were  made  by  a 
number  of  these  distinguished  men,  all  breathing  a  spirit 
of  devotion  to  the  Union,  and  deprecating  the  Southern 
movement.  While  many  blamed  the  "fanaticism"  of 
the  North,  all  united  in  the  sentiment  that  all  wrongs 
could  be  redressed  in  the  Union.  The  National  flag  was 
displayed,  and  the  music  of  The  Star-Spangled  Banner 
aroused  the  greatest  enthusiasm.  A  committee  on  reso 
lutions  was  appointed,  which  reported  the  following  day, 
and  on  the  next  day  following,  the  convention,  conjointly 
with  the  convention  of  the  Douglas  followers,  in  session 
at  the  same  time,  adopted  the  resolutions  reported. 

There  were  many  notable  men  in  the  convention  of 
Douglas  men.  Prominent  among  them  were  ex-Gov 
ernor  Charles  A.  Wickliffe,  ex-Governor  Archibald  Dixon, 
Col.  William  P.  Boone,  Joshua  F.  Bullitt,  Thomas  L. 
Jones. 

The  resolutions  placed  the  highest  estimate  on  the 
Union.  The  election  of  Lincoln  was  not  a  cause  for 
dissolution.  The  efforts  of  Governor  Crittenden  for  re 
moval  of  difficulties,  and  adjustment  of  differences,  were 
commended. 

Governor  Helm  in  his  speech  urged  that  "we  cling  to 
the  Union  as  long  as  it  exists,  and  resolve  that  it  never 
be  destroyed." 

Hon.  Garrett  Davis,  in  a  speech,  asked,  "Will  you 
preserve  the  Union  or  rush  into  the  vortex  of  revolution 
under  the  name  of  secession?"  Hon.  J.  F.  Bell  said, 
"Let  us  offer  everything  we  can  to  avert  the  torrent  of 
evil,  but  let  us  always  stand  ready  to  support  our  rights 
in  the  Union" ;  that  "the  State  is  deeply  and  devotedly 
attached  to  the  Union." 

The  fusion  of  these  two  large  elements  of  the  people 
of  Kentucky  made  a  deep  impression.  They  had  polled 


The  Legislature  37 

at  the  November,  1860,  election,  two  thirds  of  the  vote 
of  the  State,  and  now  they  clasped  hands  in  the  one 
supreme  task  of  saving  the  State  from  rushing  into 
secession.  The  echoes  of  the  Louisville  conventions  did 
not  die  away  for  many  days  afterwards.  In  all  parts  of 
the  State  meetings  were  held,  approving  their  spirit  and 
resolutions. 

The  expressions  in  the  resolutions  of  some  of  these 
meetings  were  very  strong,  declaring  that  the  election  of 
Lincoln  was  no  cause  for  dissolving  the  Union ;  that  the 
President  should  see  that  the  laws  were  executed,  by 
force,  if  necessary;  that  secession  was  a  remedy  for  no 
evil ;  that  the  Union  was  dear  to  all  and  the  only  safety ; 
that  if  any  fighting  was  to  be  done  it  should  be  done  in 
the  Union. 

A  true  idea  of  the  attitude  of  the  Unionists  may  be 
gathered  from  a  speech  made  by  Hon.  J.  T.  Boyle,  in 
Lincoln  County,  early  in  January.  General  Boyle  was 
not  only  a  Unionist,  but  proved  his  faith  by  service  after 
ward  in  the  field.  He  said  in  the  speech  referred  to : 

"  There  can  be  no  benefit  or  advantage,  no  civil  or  political 
right,  no  interest  of  any  kind  whatever,  secured  by  govern 
ment  in  this  Southern  Confederacy,  which  you  do  not  now 
enjoy  under  the  blessed  Union  formed  by  our  fathers.  On 
the  other  hand,  this  Utopian  Confederacy  can  never  give 
Kentucky  the  security  of  life  and  liberty,  and  peace  and 
property,  which  we  now  enjoy;  but  it  must  entail  upon  us  not 
only  all  the  real  and  pretended  evils  which  now  exist  and 
which  we  endure,  and  all  these  accumulated  ten  times  over, 
with  hundreds  of  evils  and  wrongs  not  dreamed  of  and  which 
we  will  never  experience  if  we  abide  by  our  glorious  Union. 
What,  then,  should  Kentucky  do  in  this  crisis  ?  In  my  opin 
ion,  we  should  stand  by  the  Star  Spangled  Banner  and  cling 
to  the  Union." 

But  the  Unionists  of  Kentucky  were  placed  in  a  most 
trying  and  delicate  position.  It  would  have  been  suicidal 


38  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

for  them  to  have  used  expressions,  in  speeches  or  resolu 
tions,  which  would  have  been  interpreted  to  mean  com 
plete  accordance  with  all  that  was  so  abundantly  charged 
against  the  Northern  people.  If  they  had  not  been  discreet, 
all  would  have  been  lost.  A  clue  to  the  situation  is 
found  in  the  words  of  Joshua  F.  Bell,  in  his  speech  Jan 
uary  8th  at  Louisville:  "Let  us  offer  everything  we  can 
to  avert  the  torrent  of  evil,  but  let  us  always  stand  ready 
to  support  our  rights  in  the  Union." 

The  Unionists,  therefore,  did  nothing  to  aggravate  the 
opposite  party.  They  left  hard  speeches  to  them,  and 
sought  by  conciliatory  words  to  save  their  State  from 
secession  and  the  country  from  anarchy.  They  honestly 
joined  in  objecting  to  the  views  of  Northern  extremists 
and  in  declaring  that,  if  the  Northern  people  entered 
upon  such  a  crusade  against  the  South  as  was  outlined 
by  the  fierce  and  fiery  orators  of  the  day  and  proclaimed  by 
the  Southern  press,  they  would  join  hands  in  resisting. 
But  they  endeavored  to  allay  such  wild  apprehensions  and 
to  keep  before  the  public  the  great  and  inestimable  value 
of  the  Union,  and  never  ceased  to  declare  that  secession 
was  a  remedy  for  no  evil. 

The  crisis  brought  to  the  front  the  great  men  of  the 
State.  Business  considerations  were  laid  aside.  Old 
age  and  infirmity  were  overcome  by  energy.  Men  of 
weight  and  influence  did  not  spare  themselves  nor  their 
means.  They  travelled  from  place  to  place  and  addressed 
the  people  on  all  sorts  of  occasions.  They  made  sacrifices 
of  ease  and  comfort,  and,  with  the  most  unsparing  dili 
gence  and  activity,  strove  to  hold  Kentucky  in  the 
Union.  The  splendid  work  of  the  Union  leaders,  from 
one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other,  through  the  winter  and 
spring  of  1861,  deserves  to  be  remembered  with  gratitude 
by  all  who,  at  this  day  and  in  all  future  years,  enjoy  the 
benefits  of  the  beneficent  government  of  the  United 
States. 


The  Legislature  39 

It  was  the  wise  and  discreet  conduct  of  the  Union 
leaders  which  prevented  precipitate  action  in  the  Legis 
lature.  There  was  a  small  majority  of  Union  men  in  the 
Senate,  but  the  House  was  about  equally  divided ;  there 
fore  strong  and  positive  utterances  might  have  influenced 
some  of  the  members.  It  has  been  said  by  one  writer 
that: 

"  The  balance  of  power  in  each  house  was  held  by  a  small 
number  of  men  who  were  opposed  to  secession  but  unwilling 
to  take  any  active  measures  for  the  support  of  the  govern 
ment,  and,  throughout  the  three  successive  sessions  of  this 
Legislature  during  the  winter  and  spring,  care  had  to  be 
taken  not  to  drive  these  men  to  the  disunion  side."  (R.  M. 
Kelly  in  Union  Regiments  of  Kentucky.} 

He  also  says : 

"  The  Union  men  believed  the  new  Legislature  to  be  elected 
in  August  would  be  more  favorable  to  the  government,  and 
were  fighting  for  time.  Popular  pressure  was  brought  to  bear 
on  both  sides.  No  sooner  would  delegations  of  secessionists 
appear  in  Frankfort  than  the  telegraph  would  summon  Union 
men  from  all  parts  of  the  State." 

The  result  was  that  there  was  no  action  by  this  Legis 
lature  upon  the  matters  which  were  uppermost  in  the 
minds  of  all,  except  the  act  for  the  regulation  of  the 
militia,  which  has  been  mentioned.  In  order  to  have 
legislative  action  it  must  be  the  work  of  both  houses, 
and  except  the  act  mentioned  there  was  none,  and  no 
joint  resolution  was  passed. 


CHAPTER  IV 

NEUTRALITY 

NEUTRALITY  in  Kentucky  cannot  be  understood 
without  a  fair  consideration  of  all  the  circum 
stances.  It  should  not  be  judged  in  the  light  which 
shines  back  upon  it  from  subsequent  events,  but  in  the 
light  of  the  time  when  it  was  born,  and  it  must  be  re 
membered  that  its  birth  antedated  actual  hostilities  by 
at  least  two  months.  Four  States  had  passed  ordinances 
of  secession  before  the  end  of  January,  1861,  but  in  that 
month  there  was  no  organized  Confederacy  and  no  cer 
tainty  that  there  would  be  a  war.  In  that  month  of 
January,  1861,  the  idea  of  Kentucky  standing  neutral  in 
the  event  of  war  first  began  to  be  considered  by  leading 
men  who  were  ardently  devoted  to  the  preservation  of 
the  Union.  On  the  i/th  of  January  the  called  session  of 
the  Legislature  assembled,  and  on  the  2Qth  of  January 
Hon.  R.  T.  Jacob,  a  member  of  the  lower  House, 
brought  in  a  series  of  resolutions,  the  third  of  which  was 
as  follows: 

"  That  the  proper  position  of  Kentucky  is  that  of  mediator 
between  the  sections,  and  that  as  an  umpire  she  should  remain 
firm  and  impartial  in  this  day  of  trial  to  our  beloved  country, 
that  by  her  counsels  and  mediation  she  may  aid  in  restoring 
peace  and  harmony  and  brotherly  love  throughout  the  entire 
land.' 

This  was  an  apt  expression  of  the  sentiment  of  the 
most  prominent  public  men  of  the  State,  excepting,  of 
course,  those  who  favored  secession. 

40 


Neutrality  41 

The  feeling  at  that  time  was  that  war  was  possible,, 
but  that  it  might  be  averted.  It  was  precisely  the  feeling 
which  animated  the  assembling  of  the  celebrated  peace 
conference  at  Washington  on  the  4th  of  February,  wherein 
twenty-one  States  were  represented  by  133  commis 
sioners  ;  which  conference  sat  for  more  than  three  weeks, 
striving  to  devise  some  means  to  avert  civil  strife.  Early 
in  1 86 1  it  was  believed  by  many  that  wise  and  temperate 
counsels  might  exert  a  wholesome  influence  and  stay  the 
wild  passions  of  the  hour.  Therefore  there  was  nothing 
unnatural  in  the  slave  State  of  Kentucky,  bordering  upon 
the  free  States,  taking  the  position  of  mediator  and  at 
tempting  to  act  as  an  umpire  between  the  two  sections, 
with  the  patriotic  view  of  possibly  preventing  a  collision. 

Nothing  could  be  more  unjust  than  to  attribute  to  the 
distinguished  men  who  urged  and  advocated  this  position 
any  motives  other  than  absolute  sincerity.  As  well 
might  the  peace  conference  at  Washington  be  charged 
with  base  and  sinister  designs  as  to  suggest  such  designs 
in  connection  with  the  effort  made  in  Kentucky  to  pre 
serve  peace. 

In  the  biography  of  John  C.  Breckinridge  it  is  said: 

"He  was  the  avowed  friend  of  the  South,  but,  impressed  with 
the  magnitude  of  the  bitter  struggle  which  would  ensue  if  all 
were  submitted  to  the  arbitrament  of  the  sword,  he  strove 
most  earnestly  to  secure  by  peaceable  means  the  rights  desired 
to  that  section.  He  labored  in  the  Senate  and  among  his  own 
people  to  avert  the  disaster  of  war.  As  long  as  there  was  a 
hope  of  peace  he  bent  his  energies  to  secure  it.  But  when  it 
became  evident  that  the  North  could  be  satisfied  only  with  the 
subjugation  of  the  South,  he  quitted  the  Senate  and  took  up 
the  sword."  1  (Collins,  vol.  ii.,  p.  203.) 

This  was  in  the  fall  of  1861.  If  he  could  be  commended 
for  striving  to  avert  war  up  to  that  date,  it  could  not 

*  See  Appendix,  §  3,  p.  338. 


42  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

have  been  other  than  commendable  for  the  Kentucky 
Unionists  to  labor  to  the  same  end  in  the  beginning  of 
the  same  year. 

On  the  2/th  day  of  May,  1861,  the  Border  State  Con 
vention  met  at  Frankfort.  After  a  week's  session  it 
issued  two  addresses;  one  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  and  one  to  the  people  of  Kentucky.  From  the 
latter  the  following  language  is  quoted : 

"  Your  State,  on  a  deliberate  consideration  of  her  responsi 
bilities,  moral,  political,  and  social,  has  determined  that  the 
proper  course  for  her  to  pursue  is  to  take  no  part  in  the  con 
troversy  between  the  government  and  the  seceded  States  but 
that  of  mediator  and  intercessor.  She  is  unwilling  to  take  up 
arms  against  her  brethren  residing  either  North  or  South  of 
the  geographical  line  by  which  they  are  unhappily  divided 
into  warring  sections.  This  course  was  commended  to  her  by 
every  consideration  of  patriotism,  and  by  a  proper  regard 
for  her  own  security.  It  does  not  result  from  timidity;  on 
the  contrary,  it  could  only  have  been  adopted  by  a  brave  peo 
ple,  so  brave  that  the  least  imputation  on  their  courage  would 
be  branded  as  false  by  their  written  and  traditional  history." 

This  address,  which  was  written  about  June  1st  and 
after  hostilities  had  actually  commenced,  shows,  by  its 
language,  that  the  stand  for  neutrality  was  taken  before 
all  hope  for  peace  was  abandoned.     It  goes  on  to  say : 

"Kentucky  was  right  in  taking  this  position,  because  from 
the  commencement  of  this  deplorable  controversy  her  voice 
was  for  reconciliation,  compromise,  and  peace.  She  had  no 
cause  of  complaint  against  the  general  government,  and  made 
none.  The  injuries  she  sustained  in  her  property  from  a 
failure  to  execute  laws  passed  for  its  protection  in  consequence 
of  illegal  interference  by  wicked  and  deluded  citizens  in  the 
free  States,  she  considered  as  wholly  insufficient  to  justify  a 
dismemberment  of  the  Union.  That,  she  regarded  as  no 
remedy  for  existing  evils,  but  an  aggravation  of  them  all.  She 
witnessed,  it  is  true,  with  deep  concern,  the  growth  of  a  wild 


Neutrality  43 

and  frenzied  fanaticism  in  one  section,  and  a  reckless  and 
defiant  spirit  in  another,  both  equally  threatening  destruction 
to  the  country,  and  tried  earnestly  to  arrest  them,  but  in 
vain." 

As  the  address  was  written  some  days  after  the  refusal 
of  the  Governor  to  respond  to  the  national  call  for 
troops,  the  following  language  explanatory  is  quoted : 

"In  declining  to  respond  to  a  call  made  by  the  present 
administration  of  the  government,  and  one  that  we  have  rea 
son  to  believe  would  not  have  been  made  if  the  administration 
had  been  fully  advised  of  the  circumstances  by  which  we  were 
surrounded,  Kentucky  did  not  put  herself  in  factious  opposi 
tion  to  her  legitimate  obligations.  ...  So  far  from  being 
denounced  for  this  action,  it  is  everywhere  looked  upon  as  an 
act  of  purest  patriotism,  resulting  from  imperious  necessity 
and  the  highest  instincts  of  self-preservation,  respected  by  the 
very  administration  that  alone  could  have  complained  of  it, 
and  will,  we  doubt  not,  be  ratified  by  it;  if  not  in  terms,  at 
least  by  its  future  action.  That  act  did  not  take  her  out  of 
the  Union." 

This  address  was  signed  by  the  following  eminent  citi 
zens  of  Kentucky:  J.  J.  Crittenden,  president  of  the 
convention;  James  Guthrie,  R.  K.  Williams,  Archibald 
Dixon,  F.  M.  Bristow,  Joshua  F.  Bell,  Charles  A.  Wick- 
liffe,  G.  VV.  Dunlap,  C.  S.  Morehead,  James  F.  Robin- 
son,  John  B.  Huston,  Robert  Richardson. 

Such  was  the  spirit  of  neutrality.  It  was  inaugurated 
when  there  was  a  possibility  of  preventing  bloodshed, 
and  it  was  adhered  to  even  in  the  first  days  of  the  struggle, 
while  it  yet  appeared  from  the  limited  number  of  troops 
called  out  (only  75,000)  that  the  actual  struggle  would 
be  small  in  its  proportions  and  not  of  long  duration,  the 
thought  then  being  that  it  would  not  last  longer  than 
ninety  days  at  the  furthest.  It  is  a  wrong  to  the  ear 
nest-minded  men  of  that  time  to  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  few  persons,  if  any,  in  the  entire  country,  then 


44  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

looked  forward  to  such  a  stupendous  struggle  as  did 
come  on.  It  is  also  due  to  them  to  credit  them  with 
honestly  striving  to  pursue  the  best  and  wisest  course  in 
a  crisis  which  called  for  the  exercise  of  the  soundest 
judgment  with  which  human  beings  are  endowed.  It 
will  be  observed  that  in  the  language  of  the  address 
quoted  the  words  occur  that  "dismemberment  of  the 
Union  is  no  remedy  for  existing  evils,  but  an  aggrava 
tion  of  them  all." 

This  shows  that  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  those  who 
favored  mediatorial  neutrality  there  was  the  same  devo 
tion  to  the  Union  and  opposition  to  secession  which  had 
manifested  itself  in  the  elections  in  1860,  and  which  had 
caused  the  Bell  and  Everett  party  and  the  Douglas  party 
to  unite  in  the  convention  of  the  8th  of  January.  The 
attitude  of  the  Kentucky  people  who  were  not  secession 
ists  may  be  thus  defined :  They  hoped  for  a  peaceable 
solution  of  the  troubles  upon  the  country ;  therefore  they 
would  do  nothing  to  excite  strife,  but  by  precept  and 
example  would  seek  to  secure  peace.  Failing  in  that, 
the  Union  must  be  adhered  to.  In  whatever  stand  was 
taken  there  was  no  thought  of  leaving  the  Union.1 
Not  only  so,  but  all  schemes  and  machinations  for 
taking  Kentucky  out  of  the  Union  were  watched,  resisted, 
and  counteracted.  That  there  was  a  struggle  to  bring 
about  the  secession  of  the  State  there  can  be  no  denial, 
and  it  is  equally  true  the  Kentucky  Unionists  resisted  it 
with  all  their  might.  The  Governor  was  a  secessionist, 
and  the  Legislature  was  an  unknown  quantity  when  it 
met  in  January,  1861.  If  those  who  favored  the  Union 
had  been  less  active  and  vigilant,  there  is  reason  to  be 
lieve  the  State  would  have  been  declared  out  of  the 
Union  even  though  a  majority  of  the  people  opposed  it. 

The  resolution  offered   by  Hon.  R.  T.  Jacob   in   the 

1  See  Appendix,  §§  4  and  5,  pp.  339  and  340. 


Neutrality  ^5 

Legislature,  on  January  29th,  in  which  it  was  declared 
that  "the  proper  position  of  Kentucky  is  that  of  a  media 
tor,"  has  been  mentioned.  He  himself  has  left  a  valua 
ble  commentary  upon  the  events  of  that  day,  in  an 
address  made  before  the  Federal  Historical  Society  of 
Louisville,  on  the  subject  of  neutrality.  In  this  address, 
commenting  upon  the  resolution  named,  he  said: 

"  This  leading  sentiment  of  mediation  was  endorsed  by  the 
Union  men  of  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature. 
Some  may  say,  Why  did  not  the  Kentucky  Legislature  go  for 
coercion?  For  two  reasons:  First,  some  States,  it  is  true, 
had  seceded  from  the  Union,  but  war  had  not  actually  com 
menced.  Second,  the  men  at  that  time  who  would  have  un 
dertaken  to  force  coercion  upon  the  Legislature  would  have 
been  in  the  hopeless  minority,  and  would  have  immediately 
given  a  majority  to  the  secessionists.  It  would  have  ended 
in  total  destruction  to  the  cause  of  the  Union  in  the  State. 
Those  resolutions  were  for  two  purposes:  In  good  faith  they 
were  intended  to  compromise  all  differences  between  the 
States,  and,  if  possible,  to  restore  peace  between  the  sections. 
If  that  failed,  they  were  intended  to  hold,  if  possible,  our 
meagre  majority  of  one,  until  the  people  could  act,  and  we 
had  no  doubt  that  when  they  did  speak  it  would  be  in  unmistak 
able  tones  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union." 

Although  Colonel  Jacob's  resolutions  were  not  agreed 
upon  so  as  to  become  the  Legislative  act,  they  showed 
the  position  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists.  Even  before  the 
date  of  those  resolutions,  which  was  January  2Qth, 
the  prominent  leaders  had  advocated  that  stand,  and 
such  was  the  position  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  all  the 
way  through  the  whole  course  of  neutrality.  It  was  for 
mediation,  and  became  known  as  "mediatorial  neutral 
ity"  as  against  "armed  neutrality,"  which  was  the  stand 
taken  by  the  secessionists,  when  they  were  not  able  to 
accomplish  secession.  This  is  clearly  shown  in  Colonel 
Jacob's  address,  but  before  quoting,  it  is  proper  to 


46  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

mention  that  the  Legislature  made  a  call  for  a  Border  State 
Convention  to  meet  in  Frankfort  on  May  27th.  Dele 
gates  were  nominated  for  this  convention  and  the  election 
took  place  May  4th.  That  election  unexpectedly  sent  a 
thrill  of  joy  throughout  the  loyal  States.  All  the  dele 
gates  elected  were  then  regarded  as  Union  men,  and  all 
were,  with  perhaps  one  exception.  They  were  John  J. 
Crittenden,  James  Guthrie,  R.  K.  Williams,  Archibald 
Dixon,  F.  M.  Bristow,  Joshua  F.  Bell,  Charles  A.  Wick- 
liffe,  George  W.  Dunlap,  Chas.  S.  Morehead,  James  F. 
Robinson,  John  B.  Huston,  Robert  Richardson.  All 
were  great  men  and  chiefs  among  the  people.  The  vote 
they  received  was  107,334,  which  showed  such  a  prepon 
derance  of  Union  sentiment  in  the  State  as  to  cause 
general  rejoicing.  It  was  this  vote  to  which  the  Hon. 
Joseph  Holt  referred  in  his  magnificent  letter  to  Joshua 
F.  Speed,  May  3ist,  beginning: 

"  The  recent  overwhelming  vote  in  favor  of  the  Union  in 
Kentucky  has  afforded  unspeakable  gratification  to  all  true 
men  throughout  the  country." 

Referring  to  this  election,  Colonel  Jacob  says  in  his 
address : 

"As  soon  as  the  people  sustained  the  Union  cause,  Gover 
nor  Magoffin  issued  his  proclamation  placing  the  State  in 
'  armed  neutrality  '  in  contradistinction  to  '  mediatorial  neutral 
ity.'  One  was  placing  the  State  independent  of  both  sections, 
and  was  simply  nonsense.  The  other  was  simply  the  logical 
position  forced  upon  the  people  by  the  want  of  power  to  hold 
any  other,  and  retain  the  power  so  that  they  could  ultimately, 
if  peace  could  not  be  preserved,  preserve  the  State  to  the 
Union." 

Colonel  Jacob  then  goes  on  to  say: 

"Immediately  after  Governor  Magoffin' s  proclamation  of 
'armed  neutrality,'  which  was  after  the  State  had  elected  the 
Union  men  to  the  Border  State  Convention  by  an  overwhelming 


v 


Neutrality  47 

majority,  the  secession  members  got  up  in  the  two  Houses  and 
declared  they  were  for  neutrality,  meaning  '  armed  neutrality.' 
Here  was  where  the  confusion  came  in,  and  so  much  injustice 
has  been  done  to  the  Union  members  of  that  Legislature, 
holding  them  and  confining  them  to  a  position  they  never 
held,  but  always  successfully  opposed." 

Governor  Magoffin's  neutrality  proclamation  will  be 
given  entire,  as  it  is  a  very  remarkable  document,  and 
has  never  been  published  in  full,  except  in  the  newspapers 
of  that  day.  It  will  be  observed  it  is  not  based  upon 
any  legislative  enactment,  but  solely  upon  the  two 
grounds  that  many  good  citizens  applied  to  him  to 
issue  it,  and  in  order  to  remove  distrust  from  himself 
personally. 

Such  neutrality  as  is  set  forth  is  grotesque,  and  was  so 
regarded  at  the  time.  Without  any  authority,  or  any 
possible  way  to  sustain  himself,  he  solemnly  forbade 
either  the  United  States  or  the  Confederate  States  to  set 
foot  on  the  sacred  soil  of  Kentucky. 

Following  is  the  proclamation  : 

"  Whereas  numerous  applications  have  been  made  to  me 
from  many  good  citizens  of  this  Commonwealth,  praying  me 
to  issue  a  proclamation  forbidding  the  march  of  any  forces  of 
this  or  any  other  State  or  States  over  our  soil  to  make  an  ap 
prehended  attack  upon  the  Federal  forces  at  Cairo  in  Illinois, 
or  to  disturb  any  otherwise  the  peaceful  attitude  of  Kentucky 
with  reference  to  the  deplorable  war  now  waging  between 
the  United  States  and  the  Confederate  States;  and  whereas 
numerous  applications  from  the  good  citizens  of  this  Common 
wealth  have  also  been  made  to  me,  praying  me  to  issue  a 
proclamation  forbidding  the  occupancy  of  any  post  or  place, 
or  the  march  over  our  sacred  soil  by  any  force  of  the  United 
States  for  any  purpose;  and  whereas  it  is  made  fully  evident 
by  every  indication  of  public  sentiment  that  it  is  the  deter 
mined  purpose  of  the  good  people  of  Kentucky  to  maintain 
with  courageous  firmness  the  fixed  position  of  self-defence, 


48  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

proposing  or  intending  no  invasion  or  aggression  towards  any 
other  State  or  States,  forbidding  the  quartering  of  troops  upon 
her  soil  by  either  of  the  hostile  sections,  but  simply  standing 
aloof  from  an  unnatural,  horrid,  and  lamentable  strife  for  the 
existence  of  which  Kentucky  neither  by  thought,  word,  or  act 
is  in  any  wise  responsible;  and  whereas  the  policy  thus 
recommended  by  so  many  of  my  fellow-citizens  of  all  political 
leanings  is,  in  my  judgment,  wise,  peaceful,  safe,  and  honor 
able,  and  the  most  likely  to  preserve  peace  and  amity  between 
the  neighboring  bordering  States  on  both  shores  of  the  Ohio 
River,  and  protect  Kentucky  generally  from  the  ravages  of  a 
deplorable  war;  and  whereas  the  arms  distributed  to  the 
State  Guard,  composed  as  it  is  of  gentlemen  equally  conscien 
tious  and  honest,  who  entertain  the  opinions  of  both  parties, 
are  not  to  be  used  against  the  Federal  Government  nor  the 
Confederate  States,  but  to  resist  and  prevent  encroachment 
upon  her  soil,  her  rights,  her  honor,  and  her  sovereignty,  by 
either  of  the  belligerent  parties,  and  to  preserve  the  peace, 
safety,  prosperity,  and  happiness  and  strict  neutrality  of  her 
people,  in  the  hope  that  she  may  soon  have  an  opportunity 
to  become  a  successful  mediator  between  them  and  in  order  to 
remove  the  unfounded  distrust  and  suspicions  of  purposes  to 
force  Kentucky  out  of  the  Union  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet 
which  may  have  been  wrongly  and  wickedly  engendered  in  the 
public  mind  in  regard  to  my  own  position  and  that  of  the 
State  Guard, 

"Now,  therefore,  I,  Beriah  Magoffin,  Governor  of  the  Com 
monwealth  of  Kentucky,  and  Commander-in-Chief  of  all  her 
military  forces  on  land  or  waters,  have  issued  this  my  procla 
mation,  hereby  notifying  and  warning  all  the  other  States, 
whether  separate  or  united,  and  especially  the  'United  States' 
and  the  'Confederate  States,'  that  I  solemnly  forbid  any 
movement  upon  the  soil  of  Kentucky,  or  the  occupation  of 
any  port,  or  post,  or  place  whatever  within  the  lawful  boun 
dary  and  jurisdiction  of  this  State,  by  any  of  the  forces  under 
the  orders  of  the  States  aforesaid,  for  any  purpose  whatever, 
until  authorized  by  invitation  or  permission  of  the  Legislature 
and  Executive  authority  of  this  State  previously  granted.  I 


Neutrality  49 

also  hereby  especially  and  solemnly  forbid  all  good  citizens  of 
this  Commonwealth,  whether  incorporated  in  the  State  Guard 
or  otherwise,  making  any  warlike  or  hostile  demonstration 
whatever  against  any  of  the  authorities  aforesaid,  earnestly 
requesting  all  citizens,  civil  and  military,  to  be  obedient 
hereto,  to  be  obedient  to  the  law  and  lawful  orders  of  both 
the  civil  and  military  authorities;  to  remain,  when  off  military 
duty,  quietly  and  peaceably  at  their  homes,  pursuing  their 
wonted  lawful  avocations;  to  refrain  from  all  words  and  acts 
likely  to  engender  hot  blood  and  provoke  collision ;  to  pursue 
such  a  line  of  wise  conduct  as  will  promote  peace  and  tran 
quillity  and  a  sense  of  safety  and  security,  and  thus  keep  far 
away  from  our  beloved  land  and  the  people  the  deplorable 
calamities  of  invasion,  but  at  the  same  time  earnestly  counsel 
ling  my  fellow-citizens  of  Kentucky  to  make  prompt  and 
efficient  preparations  to  assume  the  armor  and  attitude  pre 
sented  by  the  supreme  law  of  self-defence — and  strictly  of 
self-defence  alone.  Praying  Almighty  God  to  have  us  ever 
more  in  His  holy  keeping,  and  to  preserve  us  in  peace,  pros 
perity,  and  security  forever. 

"In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  name  and 
caused  the  seal  of  the  Commonwealth  to  be  affixed.  Done  at 
Frankfort  the  2oth  day  of  May,  A.D.  1861,  and  in  the  6pth 
year  of  the  Commonwealth 

"  By  the  Governor,  B.  M AGOFFIN. 

"THOMAS  B.  MONROE,  JR., 
"Secretary  of  State." 

In  order  to  show  clearly  how  a  distinction  was  made 
between  "mediatorial"  and  armed  neutrality,  it  is  set 
forth  in  Colonel  Jacob's  address,  which  follows  the  record 
of  the  House  Journal,  that  on  May  8th  a  resolution  was 
offered  in  the  House  approving  Governor  Magoffin's 
refusal  to  comply  with  the  Lincoln  call  for  troops.  On 
this  there  were  forty-five  affirmative  votes,  and  forty-five 
negative.  Then,  on  May  i6th,  two  resolutions  were 
4 


50  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

offered  :  one  that  the  State  should  take  no  part  in  the 
v  war  except  as  a  mediator  and  friend  of  both  sides,  and 
should  occupy  the  position  of  strict  neutrality;  the 
other  that,  under  existing  circumstances,  the  refusal  of 
Governor  Magoffin  to  furnish  troops  was  approved/ 
Both  of  these  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  House. 
This  was  mediatorial.  After  this  a  resolution  was  offered 
to  the  effect  that  Kentucky  cannot  submit  to  armed 
forces  hostile  to  her  neutrality  invading  her  soil.  This 
was  armed  neutrality.  The  vote  being  taken  caused  a 
thrilling  scene.  It  was  moved  to  lay  the  resolution  on 
the  table;  only  forty-seven  voted  ay,  and  forty-eight 
voted  no.  Colonel  Jacob  says  this  caused  exultation  on 
the  part  of  the  secessionists,  and  dismay  among  the 
Unionists.  Then  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  resolution 
itself,  when  forty-seven  voted  ay,  and  forty-eight  no. 
This  result  changed  the  feelings  of  the  respective  sides. 
So  armed  neutrality  was  defeated  in  the  House  by  one/ 
vote,  but  it  was  enough,  and  settled  the  question  in  the 
House.  "Thus,"  says  Colonel  Jacob  in  his  address, 

"the  Union  men  had  only  been  able  to  defeat  'armed  neu 
trality'  by  one  vote;  that  though  unable  to  aid  the  government 
actively,  or  to  make  peace,  yet,  by  'mediatorial  neutrality,' 
they  were  able  to  turn  over  the  struggle  to  the  people  who, 
true  to  their  love  for  the  Union,  elected  a  new  Legislature 
with  nearly  three-fourths  majority  in  the  House  for  the  perpet 
uation  of  the  Union  and  a  largely-increased  majority  in  the 
Senate." 

The  neutrality  of  Kentucky  was,  therefore,  forced 
upon  the  Unionists  by  the  necessities  and  circum 
stances  of  the  times.  They  had  to  deal  with  a  Legis 
lature  elected  in  1859  before  the  question  of  Union  or 
disunion  was  actually  upon  the  people.  It  is  plain  if  it 
had  been  elected  in  1860,  when  the  question  was  up  and 
the  Unionists  triumphed  both  at  the  August  and  Novem 
ber  elections,  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for 


Neutrality  51 

neutrality.  Under  the  circumstances,  the  Unionists  did 
all  they  could  to  save  the  State  from  being  stampeded 
out  of  the  Union.  If  they  had  acted  without  discretion, 
and  had  allowed  themselves  to  be  led  into  the  vortex  of 
secession,  they  would  have  been  unwise  and  censurable. 
The  prime  object  of  the  Unionists  was  to  save  the 
Union,  and  at  a  time  before  the  war  had  actually  com 
menced,  when  it  was  thought  it  might  possibly  be 
averted,  there  was  reason  and  patriotism  in  the  stand 
taken.  All  that  was  done  and  said  by  the  Kentucky 
Unionists  manifested  a  determined  purpose  on  their  part 
not  to  join  the  secessionist  movement.  There  were 
grounds  for  believing  that  this  refusal  to  aid  the  South 
might,  as  was  constantly  pleaded,  serve  to  moderate  the 
passions  of  the  Southern  people,  and  also  cause  the 
Northern  people  to  make  such  concessions  as  might  pre 
serve  the  peace.  The  language  of  the  address  of  the 
Border  State  Convention  shows  this: 

"  To  our  fellow-citizens  of  the  South  we  desire  to  say, 
though  we  have  been  greatly  injured  by  your  precipitate 
action,  we  would  not  now  reproach  you  as  the  cause  of  that 
injury,  but  we  entreat  you  to  re-examine  the  question  of  the 
necessity  for  such  action,  and  that  if  you  find  it  has  been 
taken  without  due  consideration,  as  we  verily  believe,  and  that 
the  evils  you  apprehend  from  a  continuance  in  the  Union  were 
neither  so  great  nor  so  unavoidable  as  you  supposed,  or  that 
Congress  is  willing  to  grant  adequate  securities,  then  we  pray 
you  to  return  promptly  to  your  connection  with  us,  that  we 
may  be  in  the  future,  as  we  have  been  in  the  past,  one  great, 
powerful,  and  prosperous  nation." 

These  and  other  like  patriotic  words  were  intended  for 
a  good  purpose,  and  the  names  of  the  men  who  signed 
the  address  are  a  guarantee  of  their  absolute  good  faith. 
The  signers  were  John  J.  Crittenden,  James  Guthrie,  R. 
K.  Williams,  Archibald  Dixon,  F.  M.  Bristow,  Joshua  F. 
Bell,  Charles  A.  Wickliffe,  G.  W.  Dunlap,  James  F. 


52  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Robinson,  John  B.  Huston,  Robert  Richardson,  of  Ken 
tucky;  H.  R.  Gamble,  Wm.  A.  Hall,  J.  B.  Henderson, 
W.  G.  Pomeroy,  of  Missouri;  John  Caldwell,  of  Tennessee. 
The  Kentucky  Unionists  regarded  secession  as  cause 
less  and  unnecessary.  Their  constant  expressions  on  the 
subject  show  this.  When  Hon.  Charles  A.  Wickliffe 
was  nominated  for  Congress  in  the  first  part  of  June, 
1861,  he  addressed  a  letter  to  his  constituents,  dated 
June  loth,  in  which  he  said: 

"It  has  been  charged  that  the  war  has  been  inaugurated  by 
the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  crushing  and  subjugating 
the  slave  States.  This  charge  is  not  true.  I  was  opposed  to 
its  commencement  for  any  purpose.  It  was  commenced  by 
South  Carolina  and  the  seceding  States  by  various  acts  of  open 
hostility;  by  the  seizure  of  forts,  arsenals,  navy  yards,  custom 
houses,  sub-treasury,  mints,  money,  and  other  property  of  the 
United  States  by  armed  force."  (Louisville  Journal.) 

The  feelings  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  cannot  be  bet 
ter  described  than  by  quoting  from  the  last  speech  of 
Senator  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  for  whom  so  many  Ken-, 
tuckians  had  voted  for  the  Presidency.  The  date  of  the 
speech  was  May  i,  1861.  Mr.  Douglas  said: 

"What  cause,  what  excuse  do  disunionists  give  for  breaking 
up  the  best  government  on  which  the  sun  of  heaven  ever 
shed  its  rays  ?  They  are  dissatisfied  with  the  result  of  a  Pres 
idential  election.  Did  they  ever  get  beaten  before  ?  Are  we 
to  resort  to  the  sword  when  we  get  defeated  at  the  ballot-box  ? 
They  assume  that  on  the  election  of  a  particular  candidate 
their  rights  are  not  safe  in  the  Union.  What  evidence  do  they 
present  of  this?  I  defy  any  man  to  show  any  act  on  which 
it  is  based.  .  .  .  There  has  never  been  a  time,  from  the 
day  that  George  Washington  was  inaugurated  first  President 
of  the  United  States,  when  the  rights  of  the  Southern  States 
stood  firmer  under  the  laws  of  the  land  than  they  do  now. 
There  never  was  a  time  when  they  had  not  as  good  a  cause  for 
disunion  as  they  have  to-day." 


Neutrality  53 

While  the  sentiments  of  those  Unionists  were  strong 
and  unmistakable  for  the  Union,  they  were  hampered  in 
the  full  exercise  of  their  wishes.  A  way  seemed  to  open 
up  for  the  solution  of  the  terribly  perplexing  question  of 
the  day.  That  way  was  neutrality.  It  is  a  noticeable 
fact  that  precisely  what  was  done  in  Kentucky  was 
attempted  in  Tennessee.  On  the  i8th  of  April  eleven 
distinguished  Tennesseeans  published  an  address  declar 
ing  that : 

"  The  present  duty  of  Tennessee  is  to  maintain  a  position  of 
independence — taking  sides  with  the  Union  and  the  peace  of 
the  country  against  all  assailants,  whether  from  the  North  or 
the  South.  Her  position  should  be  to  maintain  the  sanctity 
of  her  soil  from  the  hostile  tread  of  any  party." 

This  address  was  signed  by  John  Bell,  who  had  been  a 
candidate  for  the  Presidency,  and  also  Neil  S.  Brown, 
Russell  Houston,  E.  H.  Ewing,  C.  Johnson,  R.  J. 
Meigs,  S.  D.  Morgan,  John  S.  Brien,  Andrew  Ewing, 
John  H.  Callender,  Baillie  Peyton.  (Moore,  Rebellion 
Record,  vol.  i.,  p.  71,  Documents.} 

After  the  Legislature  of  the  winter  and  spring  of  1861 
failed  to  call  a  convention  to  consider  secession,  the 
secessionists  themselves  began  to  insist  upon  neutrality. 
Yet,  when  the  people  voted  so  tremendously  for  the 
Union  and  began  to  organize  and  provide  themselves 
with  arms,  then  these  secessionists  began  to  hurl  epithets 
at  the  Union  neutrality  men  and  charge  them  with 
duplicity.  They  insisted  upon  armed  neutrality  after 
they  found  they  could  not  get  secession,  but  they  charged 
bad  faith  on  those  who  had  been  for  mediatorial  neutral 
ity  all  the  time.  Not  only  were  the  originators  of  the 
neutrality  plan  accused  of  bad  faith,  at  the  time  and 
in  subsequent  histories;  they  have  also  been  subjected  to 
ridicule  by  historians  who  have  the  advantage  of  looking 
backward  upon  all  the  events  of  the  period,  while  those 


54  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

actors  in  a  great  emergency  had  to  shape  their  course 
without  knowing  what  those  stupendous  events  would  be. 
In  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Life  of  Lincoln  we  read: 
"It  makes  one  smile  to  read  the  contradictions  which 
eminent  Kentucky  statesmen  uttered  in  all  seriousness." 
The  utterances  of  James  Guthrieand  Archibald  Dixon 
are  then  quoted.  Also,  the  resolutions  of  the  Union 
State  Committee,  taking  the  same  ground  as  that  taken 
by  the  Tennessee  statesmen.  The  expressions  are  called 
"illogical"  and  "preposterous  assumption,"  but  that 
most  excellent  and  invaluable  history  does  the  justice  to 
quote  the  explanation  of  neutrality  given  in  a  letter  writ 
ten  by  John  J.  Crittenden  to  General  Scott,  dated  May 
17,  1861.  Crittenden  was  prominent  in  it  all.  He  was 
a  great  man,  and  as  noble  as  he  was  great.  He  under 
stood  the  case,  and  was  capable  of  laying  it  before  the 
high  official  to  whom  he  wrote.  What  he  said  is  as 
follows: 

'The  position  of  Kentucky  and  the  relation  she  occupies 
toward  the  government  of  the  Union  is  not,  I  fear,  understood 
at  Washington.  It  ought  to  be  well  understood.  Very  im 
portant  consequences  may  depend  upon  it  and  upon  her 
proper  treatment. 

"Unfortunately  for  us,  our  Governor  does  not  sympathize 
with  Kentucky  in  respect  to  secession.  His  opinion  and  feel 
ings  incline  him  strongly  to  the  side  of  the  South.  His 
answer  to  the  requisition  for  troops  was  in  terms  hasty  and  un 
becoming,  and  does  not  correspond  with  usual  and  gentlemanly 
courtesy.  But,  while  she  regretted  the  language  of  his  answer, 
Kentucky  acquiesced  in  his  declining  to  furnish  the  troops 
called  for,  and  she  did  so  not  because  she  loved  the  Union 
less,  but  she  feared  that  if  she  had  parted  with  those  troops, 
and  sent  them  to  serve  in  your  ranks,  she  would  have  been 
overwhelmed  by  the  secessionists  at  home,  and  severed  from  the 
Union.  And  it  was  to  preserve  substantially  and  ultimately  our 
connection  with  the  Union  that  induced  us  to  acquiesce  in  the  par- 


Neutrality  55 

tial  infraction  of  it  by  our  Governor's  refusal  of  troops  required. 
This  was  the  most  prevailing  and  general  motive.  To  this  may 
be  added  the  strong  indisposition  of  our  people  to  a  civil  war 
with  the  South,  and  the  apprehended  consequences  of  a  civil 
war  within  our  State  and  among  our  own  people. 

"I  could  elaborate  and  strengthen  all  this,  but  I  will  leave 
the  subject  to  your  own  reflection,  with  only  this  remark — 
that  I  think  Kentucky's  excuse  a  good  one,  and  that,  under  all 
the  circumstances  of  the  complicated  case,  she  is  rendering 
better  service  in  her  present  position  than  she  could  by  be 
coming  an  active  party  in  the  contest."  (Vol.  iv.,  p.  233.) 

The  judgment  of  John  J.  Crittenden,  expressed  in  this 
letter,  at  the  time  he  wrote,  is  of  more  weight  than  the 
speculations  of  any  historian. 

Nicolay  and  Hay's  work  contains  the  following  preg 
nant  sentence: 

' '  From  the  beginning  Lincoln  felt  that  Kentucky  would 
be  a  turning  weight  in  the  scale  of  war." 

This  being  the  case,  it  is  but  natural  that  at  the  Con 
federate  capital  the  feeling  was  the  same.  If  so,  who 
can  estimate  the  keen  disappointment  there,  when  the 
secession  of  Kentucky  was  not  accomplished?  As  we 
now  look  back  upon  the  mad  passions  of  the  hour,  it 
may  seem  chimerical  for  the  Union  leaders  in  Kentucky 
to  suppose  the  failure  to  get  Kentucky  might  have 
stayed  the  progress  of  the  Southern  movement,  and  thus 
brought  about  peace.  But  at  the  time  there  was  reason 
in  hoping  that  the  Southern  people  who  were  going  out 
to  make  war  might  be  induced  to  sit  down  and  take 
counsel  whether  they  would  be  able  to  meet  their  antag 
onist  without  the  aid  of  so  important  a  State  as  Ken 
tucky.  And  in  the  neutrality  stand  there  was,  all  the 
time,  a  trumpet  note  of  no  uncertain  sound  in  favor  of 
the  Union  and  no  less  decision  in  the  constant  declara 
tion  that  secession  was  a  remedy  for  nothing.  There 
was  never  a  thought  of  ultimate  connection  with  the 


56  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

South,  but  a  steady  purpose  to  stay  in  the  Union,  and 
when  the  time  came,  the  Unionists  of  Kentucky  were 
found  fighting  in  the  ranks  of  the  Union  armies  to  pre 
serve  the  Union,  to  which  they  never  for  a  moment  lost 
their  adhesion. 


CHAPTER  V 

RESOLUTIONS   OF  THE   UNION   STATE  COMMITTEE 

WHAT  has  been  said  in  explanation  of  neutrality 
serves  also  to  explain  the  position  of  the  Union 
State  Central  Committee  in  its  famous  resolutions  imme 
diately  following  Governor  Magoffin's  refusal  to  furnish 
troops  in  response  to  the  call  of  President  Lincoln. 
That  committee,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  appointed  in 
January,  1861,  when  the  Bell  party  and  the  Douglas 
party  made  a  fusion — both  being  for  the  preservation  of 
the  Union.  It  is  a  fact  that  this  Union  Committee 
indorsed  the  refusal  of  Governor  Magoffin  to  furnish 
troops,  and  it  also  used  language  many  claim  committed 
Kentucky  to  the  South.  That  was  on  the  i8th  day  of 
April,  1861.  On  the  one  proposition  the  resolutions 
said: 

"The  government  of  the  Union  has  appealed  to  her 
[Kentucky]  to  furnish  men  to  suppress  the  revolutionary 
combinations  in  the  Cotton  States.  She  has  refused ;  she 
has  most  wisely  and  justly  refused." 

On  the  other,  they  said  : 

"What  the  future  destiny  of  Kentucky  may  be,  we 
cannot,  of  course,  with  certainty,  foresee.  But  if  the 
enterprise  announced  in  the  proclamation  of  the  Presi 
dent  should  at  any  time  hereafter  assume  the  aspect  of 
a  war  for  overrunning  and  subjugation  of  the  seceding 
States — that  then  Kentucky  ought  to  take  her  stand 
with  the  South." 

57 


5&  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Both  of  these  expressions  have  been  much  commented 
on.  Much  has  been  made  of  them  by  writers  who  seek 
to  convict  the  Union  men  of  Kentucky  of  duplicity. 
The  committee  was  composed  of  eminent  and  widely- 
known  Union  men — John  H.  Harney, George  D.  Prentice, 
Charles  Ripley,  Philip  Tompert,  Nat  Wolfe,  William  F. 
Bullock,  James  Speed,  William  P.  Boone,  Hamilton 
Pope,  Louis  E.  Harvie.  All,  excepting  the  one  last 
named,  remained  true  to  the  Union  throughout  the  entire 
struggle.  It  is  claimed  that  these  Union  leaders  took 
ground  against  war  for  the  Union,  and  also  pledged  Ken 
tucky  to  the  South  in  the  event  of  war,  and  that  they 
were  afterwards  false  to  their  expressed  position  in  their 
resolutions.  The  questions  arise,  Why  did  the  commit 
tee  indorse  the  Governor's  refusal  to  furnish  troops? 
And  why  did  they  use  the  language  quoted  concerning 
the  future  of  Kentucky?  As  we  have  said  of  neutrality, 
that  it  must  not  be  judged  in  the  light  which  shines  back 
upon  it,  but  rather  in  the  light  of  the  time  when  it  was 
born,  so  it  must  be  said  of  the  resolutions  of  the  com 
mittee.  Both  of  the  questions  propounded  are  easily 
answered  when  the  circumstances  and  conditions  are  con 
sidered,  and  when  the  other  language  in  the  resolutions 
is  considered.  The  committee  was  called  upon  to  speak 
and  it  was  so  situated  that  it  could  not  have  spoken  ex 
cept  as  it  did.  The  Kentucky  Unionists  had  theretofore 
taken  the  stand  for  neutrality  for  a  wise  and  reasonable 
purpose,  as  has  been  shown.  Now,  shall  the  committee, 
while  this  neutral  stand  is  the  order  of  the  day,  resolve 
that  Kentucky  should  furnish  troops?  What,  in  such 
case,  would  become  of  the  idea  of  neutrality?  The  com 
mittee  must  either  suddenly  fly  in  the  face  of  the  position 
the  people  had  taken,  or  else  agree  that  under  the 
circumstances  the  refusal  was  proper.  The  language  of 
the  resolutions  is  as  follows:  "The  present  duty  of 
Kentucky  is  to  maintain  her  present  independent  posi- 


Union  State  Committee  Resolutions     59 

tion,  taking  sides  not  with  the  government  and  not  with 
the  seceding  States,  but  with  the  Union,  against  them 
both."  They  also  contain  this  language: 

"Seditious  leaders  in  the  midst  of  us  now  appeal  to  her 
[Kentucky]  to  furnish  men  to  uphold  those  combinations 
against  the  government  of  the  Union.  Will  she  comply 
with  this  appeal?  Ought  she  to  comply  with  it?  We 
answer  with  emphasis,  No." 

T\\Q  present  duty  of  the  State,  so  far  as  the  committee 
could  speak,  was  to  stand  neutral  in  the  fight,  but  to 
stand  in  the  Union.  That  was  all  it  could  say  upon  that 
point. 

Then,  as  to  the  future  of  the  State,  we  must  note 
the  language,  and  consider  the  inflammatory  writing  and 
speaking  which  abounded  at  that  day.  The  resolutions 
say,  "If  the  enterprise  announced  in  the  proclamation 
of  the  President  should  at  any  time  hereafter  assume  the 
aspect  of  a  war  for  the  overrunning  and  subjugation  of 
the  seceding  States,"  Kentucky  would  draw  the  sword 
in  resistance. 

It  is  plain  that  the  committee  did  not  regard  the  aspect 
of  the  war  at  that  time  as  intending  to  overrun  or  sub 
jugate  the  South,  and  the  committee  expressly  so  stated 
in  the  resolutions,  using  this  language  in  regard  to  it: 

"Such  an  event,  if  it  should  occur,  of  which  we  confess 
there  does  not  appear  to  us  to  be  rational  probability." 

It  may  be  asked,  What  meaning  could  the  call  for 
troops  have  other  than  subjugation?  The  question 
must  be  answered  in  the  light  of  the  public  writing  and 
speaking  of  the  time.  It  was  charged  that  the  party 
which  elected  Lincoln  was  insane  with  fanaticism,  and 
that  its  purpose  was  to  crush  and  overrun  the  South, 
wantonly  destroying  property,  perpetrating  outrages, 
and  in  every  conceivable  manner  mistreating  the  South 
ern  people;  that  the  election  of  Lincoln  meant  that  the 
people  of  the  South  were  to  be  deprived  of  their  liberties 


60  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

and  brought  into  subjection  as  conquered  provinces.  It 
was  on  account  of  these  anticipated  wrongs  that  the 
States  seceded.  They  insisted  that  the  purposes  of  the 
North  towards  them  were  so  brutal  and  savage  that  in 
order  to  protect  their  lives  and  property,  and  to  save 
their  women  and  children  from  unspeakable  horrors,  they 
were  forced  to  secede. 

All  this  the  committee  regarded  as  folly,  and  worse 
than  folly.  But  as  the  country  rang  with  such  wild 
ebullitions  of  passionate  talk,  and  as  this  was  what  was 
meant  by  the  word  "subjugation,"  the  committee  natur 
ally  said  if  such  things  should  come  to  pass  Kentucky 
would  draw  the  sword  against  it.  And  so,  doubtless, 
she  would  have  done,  but  the  committee  saw  no  such 
future  in  the  call  for  troops.  It  did  not  regard  the  call 
for  troops  to  suppress  insurrection  as  looking  to  "subju 
gation,"  as  that  word  was  interpreted  then  to  mean. 

In  the  first  place,  the  call  for  only  75,000  troops  did 
not  look  like  "subjugation."  The  expectation  of  the 
time  was  that  the  war  would  be  over  in  "ninety  days," 
and  that  did  not  look  like  "subjugation."  Nor  did  it 
appear  that  the  Confederate  authorities  at  that  time 
anticipated  any  great  or  extended  war.  On  all  sides  the 
indications  were  that  there  would  be  only  a  small  and 
short-lived  trouble.  This  was  evidenced  not  only  by  the 
call  of  75,000  troops  for  ninety  days,  but  also  by  the 
views  of  the  President  of  the  Confederacy. 

On  the  29th  of  April,  two  weeks  after  the  call  for 
75,000  troops,  Jefferson  Davis  sent  his  message  to  the 
Confederate  Congress,  in  which  he  used  the  following 
language : 

"  There  are  now  in  the  field  at  Charleston,  Pensacola,  Forts 
Morgan,  Jackson,  St.  Philip,  and  Pulaski,  19,000  men,  and 
16,000  are  now  en  route  for  Virginia.  It  is  proposed  to 
organize  and  hold  in  readiness  for  instant  action,  in  view  of 
the  present  exigencies  of  the  country,  100,000  men.  If 


Union  State  Committee  Resolutions     61 

further  force  be  needed,  the  wisdom  and  patriotism  of  Con 
gress  will  be  confidently  appealed  to  for  authority  to  call  into 
the  field  additional  numbers  of  our  noble-spirited  volunteers 
who  are  constantly  tendering  their  services,  far  in  excess  of 
our  wants. ' '  l 

This  did  not  indicate  that  a  great  and  prolonged  war 
was  expected  by  him,  nor  a  war  that  would  call  out  all 
who  could  fight.  In  the  second  place,  the  committee 
entertained  no  such  ideas  of  the  awful  intentions  of  the 
North  as  stated.  And  in  order  that  it  may  be  seen  what 
extreme  expressions  on  the  subject  were  prevalent,  atten 
tion  may  be  called  to  some  of  them,  though  to  mention 
all  would  require  volumes. 

In  the  speeches  before  the  Virginia  convention,  Febru 
ary,  1861  (Moore  Reb.  Rec.,  vol.  12,  p.  142),  we  find 
these  expressions: 

"Avowed  purpose  to  take  possession  of  every  department 
of  power  and  employ  them  in  hostility  to  our  institutions." 

'  *  The  government  has  become  our  foe  and  oppressor,  never 
to  pause  until  our  dearest  rights  as  well  as  our  honor  are 
crushed  beneath  its  iron  heel." 

"Light  up  the  fires  of  servile  insurrection,  and  give  your 
dwellings  to  the  torch  of  the  incendiary  and  your  wives  and 
children  to  the  knife  of  the  assassin." 

"The  degradation  of  the  South,  the  result  of  Lincoln's 
election." 

"  Take  possession  of  the  power  of  the  government  and  use 
it  for  our  destruction." 

"  The  government  of  the  United  States  will  come  down  on 
us  in  overwhelming  numbers,  our  men  will  be  exterminated, 
or  compelled  to  wander  as  vagabonds  on  a  hostile  earth,  and 
as  for  our  women,  their  fate  will  be  too  horrible  to  contemplate 
even  in  fancy." 

"  The  white  race  having  been  exterminated,  the  land  will  go 
into  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  blacks,  and  will,  in 

1  See  Appendix  §  6,  p.  341. 


62  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

consequence,  rapidly  pass  into  the  condition  of  San  Do 
mingo  and  become  a  howling  wilderness." 

"At  last  the  fanaticism  and  eager  haste  for  rapine,  mingled 
with  their  foul  purposes,  engendered  those  fermenting  millions 
who  have  seized  the  Constitution  and  distorted  its  most  sacred 
form  into  an  instrument  for  our  ruin." 

"  Threaten  to  send  the  ruffians  of  Boston  and  New  York  to 
re-enact  the  scenes  of  1813  at  Portsmouth  and  Hampton. 

"A  savage  war  in  which  no  age  or  sex  is  spared." 

It  was  thus  that  the  commissioners  from  the  already 
seceded  States  represented  the  purposes  of  the  North 
toward  the  South  in  the  Virginia  convention. 

The  same  extreme  language  emanated  from  the  very 
highest  sources. 

In  a  speech  of  Alexander  H.  Stephens  April  30,  1861, 
he  said:  "We  fight  for  our  homes,  our  fathers  and 
mothers,  our  wives,  brothers,  sisters,  sons,  and  daughters; 
they  for  money — the  hirelings  and  mercenaries  of  the 
North  are  hand-to-hand  against  you." 

In  his  message  to  the  Confederate  Congress  July  20, 
1861,  President  Davis  says  the  events  of  the  last  few 
weeks  lift  the  veil  behind  which  the  purposes  of  the 
Federals  have  been  concealed,  and  their  odious  features 
are  revealed.  The  purpose  is  subjugation  of  the  South, 
by  waging  an  "indiscriminate  war  with  savage  ferocity 
unknown  in  modern  civilization";  "in  this  war  rapine  is 
the  rule";  that  dwellings  and  property  are  destroyed 
"after  the  inhabitants  have  fled  from  the  outrages  of 
brutal  soldiery."  "Mankind  will  shudder  at  the  tale  of 
outrages  committed  on  defenceless  families."  "Special 
war  on  the  sick,  including  women  and  children."  "The 
sacred  claims  of  humanity,  respected  even  during  the 
fury  of  actual  battle  by  careful  diversion  of  attack  from 
hospitals,  are  outraged  in  cold  blood,  by  a  government 
that  pretends  to  desire  a  continuance  of  fraternal 
relations." 


Union  State  Committee  Resolutions     63 

When  Mr.  Davis  came  to  write  a  history  of  the  war  a 
number  of  years  after  it  was  over,  he  indulged  freely  in 
the  same  kind  of  extreme  language:  "Plunder  and 
devastation  of  the  property  of  non-combatants;  destruc 
tion  of  private  dwellings,  and  even  edifices  devoted  to  the 
worship  of  God;  expeditions  organized  for  the  sole  pur 
pose  of  sacking  cities,  consigning  them  to  flames,  killing 
the  unarmed  inhabitants,  and  inflicting  horrible  outrages 
on  women  and  children  were  some  of  the  constantly  re 
curring  atrocities  of  the  invader."  (Vol.  ii,  p.  709.) 

In  the  same  way  that  the  Southern  Commissioners 
presented  the  case  to  Virginia,  so  was  it  presented  to  the 
State  of  Kentucky. 

December  28,  1860,  Governor  Magoffin  addressed  a 
letter  to  the  Commissioner  from  Alabama,  Hon.  F.  S. 
Hale,  in  response  to  one  received,  in  which  the  direful 
purposes  of  the  people  of  the  North  are  depicted.  Ma- 
goffin  says  that  Mr.  Hale  in  his  letter  to  him  has  not 
exaggerated  "the  grievous  wrongs,  injuries,  and  indig 
nities  '  to  which  the  citizens  of  the  South  have  long  sub 
mitted.  He  speaks  of  those  who  are  "so  madly  bent 
upon  the  destruction  of  our  constitutional  guaranties"; 
that  the  people  .of  Kentucky  realize  "the  intolerable 
wrongs  and  menacing  dangers  you  have  so  elaborately 
recounted  "  ;  that  "when  the  time  of  action  comes  (and 
it  is  now  fearfully  near  at  hand)  our  people  will  be  found 
allied  as  a  unit  under  the  flag  of  resistance  to  intolerable 
wrong."  He  speaks  of'the  Southern  States  as"confront- 
ed  by  a  common  enemy,  encompassed  by  a  common  peril. ' ' 

He  says  "the  Legislature  of  Kentucky  will  assemble 
on  the  i/th  of  January,  when  the  sentiment  of  the  State 
will  doubtless  find  expression." 

In  the  letter  to  which  Governor  Magoffin  replied  as 
above,  Mr.  Hale  represents  the  feeling  of  the  Northern 
people  as  terrible  in  its  savagery  and  brutality  towards 
the  South.  He  says : 


64  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

"  The  more  daring  and  restless  fanatics  have  banded  them 
selves  together  to  carry  out  in  practice  the  terrible  lessons 
taught  by  the  timid,  by  making  an  armed  incursion  upon  the 
sovereign  State  of  Virginia,  slaughtering  her  citizens  for  the 
purpose  of  inciting  a  servile  insurrection  among  her  slave 
population,  and  arming  them  for  the  destruction  of  their  own 
masters.  During  the  past  summer  the  abolition  incendiary 
has  lit  up  the  prairies  of  Texas,  fired  the  dwellings  of  the 
inhabitants,  burned  up  whole  towns,  and  laid  poison  for  her 
citizens,  thus  literally  executing  the  terrible  denunciations 
of  fanaticism  against  the  slaveholder — alarm  to  their  sleep, 
fire  to  their  dwellings,  and  poison  to  their  food." 

He  speaks  of  Lincoln's  election  in  these  words:  "As 
the  last  and  crowning  act  of  insult  and  outrage  upon  the 
people  of  the  South,  the  citizens  of  the  Northern  States, 
by  overwhelming  majorities,  on  the  6th  day  of  November 
last,  elected  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Hannibal  Hamlin." 

He  says  of  Lincoln  that  "  He  stands  forth  as  the  repre 
sentative  of  the  fanaticism  of  the  North,"  and  that  "his 
election  cannot  be  regarded  otherwise  than  as  a  solemn 
declaration  on  the  part  of  a  great  majority  of  the  North 
ern  people  of  hostility  to  the  South,  her  property,  and 
her  institutions.  Nothing  less  than  a  declaration  of  war 
for  the  triumph  of  this  new  theory  of  government — 
destroys  the  property  of  the  South,  lays  waste  her  fields, 
and  inaugurates  all  the  horrors  of  a  San  Domingo  servile 
insurrection,  consigning  her  citizens  to  assassination,  and 
their  wives  and  daughters  to  pollution." 

He  says:  "If  the  policy  of  the  Republicans  is  carried 
out  according  to  the  program  indicated  by  the  leaders  of 
the  party,  and  the  South  submits,  degradation  and  ruin 
must  overwhelm  alike  all  classes  of  citizens  in  the  South 
ern  States."  "Who  can  look  upon  such  a  picture  with 
out  a  shudder?  "  "Our  lives,  our  property,  the  safety  of 
our  homes  and  our  hearthstones — all  that  men  hold  dear 
on  earth — is  involved  in  the  issue." 


Union  State  Committee  Resolutions     65 

Governor  Magoffin  approved  all  this,  and  much  more, 
contained  in  Mr.  Hale's  letter,  and  said  Mr.  Hale  had 
not  exaggerated  the  case. 

Such  fearful  portrayals  of  the  alleged  demoniacal  spirit 
and  purposes  of  the  North  were  everywhere  rife  at  the 
time.  It  is  therefore  not  unreasonable  that  the  Union 
men  of  Kentucky,  who  did  not  believe  one  word  of  such 
folly,  should  yet,  when  called  upon  to  adopt  resolutions, 
say,  in  order  to  satisfy  the  public  mind,  that  if  such 
awful  conditions  should  arise,  they  would  take  up  arms 
to  resist. 

In  the  third  place,  the  committee  regarded  the  war  at 
that  time  precisely  as  it  truly  was,  and  as  it  was  through 
out  the  entire  struggle.  The  object  and  purposes  of  the 
war  were  well  expressed  by  Hon.  Cassius  M.  Clay  in  a 
letter  to  the  London  Times  May  17,  1861.  He  answers  the 
question  "Can  you  govern  a  subjugated  people?"  by 
saying:  "  We  do  not  propose  to  subjugate  the  revolted 
States.  We  propose  simply  to  put  down  the  rebel  citi 
zens.  The  United  States  will  rise  from  the  smoke  of 
battle  with  renewed  stability  and  power  "  (Moore,  Re 
bellion  Rec.,  vol.  I,  p.  340.) 

The  committee  saw  that  the  war  could  be  prosecuted 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  Union  without  being  a  war 
for  subjugation,  just  as  was  outlined  in  the  celebrated 
Crittenden  resolutions,  introduced  in  Congress  in  July, 
1 86 1,  which  may  here  be  quoted  entire: 

"Resolved,  That  the  present  deplorable  Civil  War  has  been 
forced  upon  the  country  by  the  disunionists  of  the  Southern 
States,  now  in  arms  against  the  Constitutional  government, 
and  in  arms  around  the  Capital.  That  in  this  National  emer 
gency,  Congress, banishing  all  feelings  of  mere  passion  or  resent 
ment,  will  recollect  only  its  duty  to  the  whole  country.  That 
this  war  is  not  waged  on  their  part  in  any  spirit  of  oppression, 
or  for  any  purpose  of  conquest  or  subjugation,  or  purpose  of 
overthrowing  or  interfering  with  the  rights  or  institutions  of 
5 


66  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

those  States,  but  to  defend  and  maintain  the  supremacy  of 
the  Constitution,  and  to  preserve  the  Union  with  all  its  dig 
nity,  equality,  and  rights  of  the  several  States  unimpaired, 
and  that  as  soon  as  these  objects  are  accomplished  the  war 
ought  to  cease." 

It  is  plain  that  the  distinguished  author  of  these  reso 
lutions  might  well  have  signed  the  resolutions  of  the  com 
mittee.  He  counselled  mediation  and  neutrality,  with 
the  intense  hope  that  it  might  accomplish  something, 
and  he  saw  that  the  war  could  be,  as  it  was,  to  maintain 
the  Union,  and  was  not  for  subjugation;  that  it  had  no 
such  object  as  was  declared  in  the  inflammatory  utter 
ances  of  the  day,  and  he  could  have  said  with  any  rea 
sonable  person  that  if  it  should  ever  take  on  the  fearful 
features  portrayed  by  the  wild  imagination  of  speakers 
and  writers,  then  Kentuckians  and  all  other  humane 
persons  anywhere  would  aid  in  resisting  such  barbaric, 
or,  rather,  demon-like,  conduct. 

The  unequivocal,  outspoken  stand  of  the  resolutions 
and  of  all  the  Unionists  from  first  to  last  was  for  the 
Union.  In  view  of  the  dire  predictions  of  the  terrible 
purposes  of  the  North  to  overrun  the  South  like  savages 
the  natural  right  existed  to  say  that  in  such  event  Ken 
tucky  would  draw  the  sword  to  resist.  But  they  saw  no 
such  savagery  involved  in  saving  the  Union.  The  main 
tenance  of  National  authority  did  not  call  for  savage 
orgies  as  the  fire-eaters  proclaimed,  and  there  was  no 
inconsistency  in  saying  such  atrocious  conduct  would 
be  resisted. 

Again,  there  was  perfect  consistency  in  adhering  to  the 
Union  and  yet  favoring  the  neutrality  of  Kentucky. 
That  might  be  the  very  best  means  to  avert  war,  and 
even  such  men  as  Jefferson  Davis  and  John  C.  Breckin- 
ridge  declared  that  they  sought  to  the  last  to  avert  war 
in  the  way  they  thought  right  and  best.  There  was  no 
sort  of  inconsistency  in  the  Unionists  avowedly  standing 


Union  State  Committee  Resolutions     67 

for  the  Union,  which  involved  no  change,  and  also  favor 
ing  neutrality  under  the  circumstances  existing. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  was  altogether  incon 
sistent  to  claim  to  respect  and  observe  neutrality,  and 
yet  work  to  accomplish  secession.  To  secede  meant 
positive  action  and  positive  change.  Therefore,  the 
Southern  Rights  Kentuckians  who  were  striving  for 
secession  could  not  be  called  neutral.  They  could  not 
be  promoters  of  positive  change  and  still  respect  and 
observe  neutrality.  If  they  did  respect  and  observe 
neutrality,  then  they  could  not  be  ^working  in  the  inter 
ests  of  secession. 

This  difference  between  the  two  sides  was  bound  to 
exist  from  the  fact  that  no  positive  action  was  needed  to 
place  Kentucky  in  the  Union,  it  being  already  there ;  but 
positive  action  was  necessary  to  make  the  change  and 
take  the  State  out  of  the  Union. 

The  manifest  object  of  the  resolutions  was  to  satisfy 
the  people  of  both  parties  that  the  neutral  stand  of  the 
State,  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to  allay  passion,  was  to 
be  observed  in  the  striking  particular  of  not,  under  pres 
ent  circumstances,  furnishing  troops  to  either  side,  and 
to  give  assurance  that  the  party  represented  by  the  com 
mittee  abhorred  the  thought  of  " subjugation,"  as  subju 
gation  was  depicted  to  be.  The  committee  did  not  see 
that  there  was  any  "rational  probability"  of  such  pur 
poses  of  subjugation  and  could  justly  speak  of  it  as  they 
did. 

Everything  turned  on  the  meaning  attached  to  the 
word  subjugation.  When  any  violation  of  law  is 
stopped,  or  if  any  insubordination  is  quelled,  or  in 
surrection  put  down,  the  word  "subjugation"  may  be 
used  in  a  general  sense,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  all 
who  may  be  engaged  in  such  breach  of  the  peace, 
together  with  their  families,  are  to  be  persecuted  with 
demoniacal  fury. 


68  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

The  Civil  War,  on  the  National  side,  was  for  a  definite 
purpose — to  save  the  Union.  But  it  was  a  war,  and 
when  there  is  war  there  is  hardship.  Incidental  harm 
and  incidental  changes  and  disruptions  are  unavoidable 
in  wars.  Deplorable  as  the  consequences  of  any  war  are, 
such  characterizing  of  our  own  as  that  found  in  the  pas 
sage  quoted  from  Jefferson  Davis  is  nothing  but  temper, 
not  historic  statement.  So,  also,  in  the  proclamation  of 
the  Governor  of  Georgia,  February  1 1,  1862,  in  which  he 
says,  "a  wicked  and  bloody  war  is  waged  upon  the  South 
because  it  threw  off  the  yoke  of  bondage  and  refused  to 
be  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for  a  haughty 
and  insolent  people  who  claimed  the  right  of  obedience 
to  their  mandates";  and  that,  in  the  ''attempt  to  sub 
jugate  us,"  all  rules  of  civilized  warfare  are  disregarded: 
"they  have  stolen  our  property,  laid  waste  the  country, 
and  with  fiendish  malignity  shot  down  women  and  child 
ren  ;  they  have  disregarded  all  dictates  of  humanity ; 
they  carry  on  the  war  for  our  destruction ;  our  lands  are 
to  be  taken  from  us  and  colonized  with  Yankees;  compel 
our  negroes  to  cultivate  the  lands  for  Northerners;  we 
are  to  be  driven  from  home;  our  graves  and  altars  to  be 
trampled  under  foot  by  our  insolent  masters;  we  must 
transmit  to  our  posterity  a  heritage  of  bondage."  (War 
Records  Serial,  No.  127,  p.  918.)  This  also  is  temper,  not 
history  nor  truth. 

This  lurid  form  of  expression  depicts  the  "subjuga 
tion"  of  the  hour  which  the  committee  abhorred.1  While 
it  spoke  out  against  such  subjugation,  and  respected  the 
neutrality  stand  of  the  State,  it  yet  manifested  its  thor 
ough  repugnance  to  the  Southern  movement  and  firm 
adherence  to  the  Union.  That  was  the  whole  case,  and 
the  whole  point.  Not  to  secede  covered  all,  for  that 
was  all  that  was  asked.  And  for  Kentucky  to  stand 
aloof  from  the  Confederacy  was  such  a  startling  disap- 

1  See  Appendix,  §  7,  p.  342. 


Union  State  Committee  Resolutions     69 

pointment  it  was  with  good  reason  the  Kentucky  Union 
ists  hoped  that  thereby  the  war  might  be  averted. 

There  was  the  same  juggling  with  the  word  "coercion" 
as  with  "subjugation."  If  it  were  agreed  that  secession 
was  a  right,  then  to  coerce  a  State  back  into  the  Union 
after  it  seceded  would  be  a  wrong.  But  secession  was 
not  acknowledged  as  a  right.  It  was  not  agreed  that 
any  State,  when  it  chose  to  do  so,  could  disrupt  the 
Union  and  change  the  whole  aspect  and  condition  of  the 
American  Republic,  by  setting  up  an  independency  and 
entering  into  any  relations  it  chose  with  foreign  powers. 
It  must  always  be  remembered  that  the  contention  was 
made  that  this  could  not  be  done,  just  as  strongly  as  it 
was  contended  that  it  could  be  done.  Furthermore,  the 
United  States  claimed  that  it  had  rights  to  its  own  prop 
erty,  even  if  it  was  located  in  some  State  which  assumed 
the  right  to  secede. 

Therefore,  when  any  one  State  of  the  Union  saw  fit  to 
exercise  what  it  claimed  as  a  right,  it  was  in  order  for  the 
National  government  to  claim  its  rights  also. 

If  it  be  agreed  that  there  were  two  theories  of  our  Re 
public,  one  that  a  State  was  supreme,  and  the  other  that 
it  was  not,  it  was  as  natural,  when  the  time  came,  for  the 
Nation  to  assert  its  right  as  for  the  State  to  assert  its 
right.  When,  therefore,  a  State  seceded,  and  took  all 
the  United  States  property  in  its  limits  along  with  it,  it 
was  puerile  to  say  "All  we  want  is  to  be  let  alone." 
Of  course,  that  was  all,  but  the  National  government 
naturally  said  in  reply,  "  You  shall  not  destroy  the  whole 
plan  of  the  Republic  nor  take  all  the  government  prop 
erty."  The  United  States  either  had  to  yield  its  rights 
or  else  insist  upon  them,  even  if  force  had  to  be  used. 

The  words  "subjugation"  and  "coercion"  were  there 
fore  misleading,  and  there  was  no  occasion  for  their  use. 
To  illustrate  the  real  status  of  the  case,  the  following, 
which  occurred  in  Congress,  is  in  point : 


70  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

July  11,  1861,  Vallandigham  offered  a  proviso  to  a  bill 
for  raising  money  to  suppress  the  rebellion,  that  no  part 
of  it  should  be  employed  in  subjugating  or  holding,  as 
conquered  provinces,  any  State,  or  to  abolish  slavery. 

Mr.  McClernand  said  that  he,  being  in  favor  of  a  vigor 
ous  prosecution  of  the  war,  would  not  allow  amendments 
which 

"carry  an  implication  with  them  that  the  object  of  the  war 
is  very  different  from  the  design  of  those  prosecuting  it.  I 
have  heard  no  respectable  man  or  set  of  men  say  that  the 
object  of  this  war  is  to  subjugate  the  seceding  States  and  hold 
them  as  conquered  provinces.  .  .  .  I  am  for  prose 
cuting  this  war  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  the  Federal 
authority,  and  putting  down  rebellion,  and  not  for  the  purpose 
of  subjugating  the  seceding  States  and  holding  them  as  con 
quered  provinces,  nor  for  the  purpose  of  abolishing  slavery, 
and  I  repudiate  all  reflections  of  that  kind.  The  imputation 
is  unjust  to  the  friends  of  the  war."  (Congressional  Globe ', 
July  n,  1861.) 

Many  persons  chose  to  attach  the  meaning  of  the  most 
extreme  kind  to  the  words  "subjugation"  and  "coer 
cion,"  but  the  committee  and  the  Kentucky  Unionists, 
in  common  with  the  true  men  of  the  whole  country,  saw 
that  war  could  be  made  and  prosecuted  for  the  suppres 
sion  of  the  rebellion  without  making  it  demoniacal  in  its 
purposes.  They  saw  that  secession  and  appropriation  of 
government  property  could  be  resisted  rightfully  and 
legally,  although  it  was  claimed  that  such  resistance  was 
subjugation  and  coercion.  They  foresaw — precisely  what 
came  to  pass — the  overthrow  of  armed  opposition  to 
National  authority  and  the  salvation  of  the  American 
Union. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   UNION   LEADERS 

THERE  has  been  so  much  misrepresentation  of  the 
Union  men  of  Kentucky,  and  as  there  has  never 
been  any  response  to  such  misrepresentations  in  histori 
cal  form,  it  is  due  to  the  men  who  were  true  to  the 
Union,  and  who  were  instrumental  in  holding  the  State 
of  Kentucky  in  the  Union,  that  they  should  here  have 
some  particular  mention.  It  would  scarcely  be  possible 
to  name  them  all,  but  some  of  the  names  may  be  given, 
showing  in  a  general  way  the  principal  leaders  of  the 
Union  sentiment  in  various  parts  of  the  State. 

It  has  been  unjustly  said  that  the  Union  men  of  note 
were  few  in  number.  In  the  sketch  of  the  life  of  Hon. 
Garrett  Davis  in  Collins's  Kentucky,  it  is  said  "He  was 
among  the  few  leading  Kentuckians  who  opposed  seces 
sion  in  1861  "  (vol.  i.,  p.  82). 

It  is  also  said  in  Shaler's  History  that  "The  intellect 
ual  and  political  leadership  of  the  Commonwealth  was 
mainly  in  the  hands  of  men  who,  though  often  uncon 
sciously,  were  steadily  acting  in  a  way  to  lead  the  people 
toward  secession." 

It  would  have  been  most  singular  if  the  people  of  the 
State  had  voted  overwhelmingly  against  the  Southern 
movement,  as  they  did,  without  leadership.  When  we 
reflect  upon  the  influence  which  is  exerted  upon  the  popu 
lar  mind  in  critical  times  by  the  men  who  are  looked  to 
as  the  natural  leaders  of  public  sentiment,  the  conclusion 

7i 


72  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

is  irresistible  that  there  was  in  Kentucky  a  leadership  of 
the  highest  intellectual  and  moral  force  which  stemmed 
the  pressure  brought  to  bear  in  favor  of  secession. 

The  Governor  was  a  secessionist  and  it  might  have  been 
readily  supposed,  indeed,  almost  taken  for  granted,  that 
the  Legislature  elected  in  1859  would  act  in  harmony  with 
the  Governor.  All  the  inducements,  arguments,  and  in 
flammatory  appeals  which  could  be  urged  were  presented 
to  persuade  or  fire  the  hearts  of  the  people  of  the  State  to 
join  the  Confederacy,  but  all  were  of  little  avail  compara 
tively.  When  the  test  came  in  1 860  the  people  refused  to 
vote  for  the  Southern  Rights  candidate  for  the  Presidency. 
When  the  test  came  in  the  meeting  of  the  Legislature  in 
the  winter  and  spring  of  1861,  the  members  refused  to 
obey  the  behests  or  respond  to  the  earnest  wishes  of 
the  rebel  Governor  and  his  chosen  friends.  When  the 
test  came  at  the  polls  in  1861,  the  people  declared  in 
favor  of  the  Union  by  overwhelming  majorities. 

Shall  it  be  said  all  this  occurred  when  the  principal  men 
of  the  State  were  of  a  contrary  mind  ?  The  perversions  of 
the  case  deserve  to  be  answered.  A  list  of  names  will  here 
be  presented,  which  might  be  greatly  enlarged,  but  it  is 
enough  to  show  the  folly  of  the  statements  which  have 
appeared  in  historical  works  to  the  effect  that  the  leading 
men  of  Kentucky  were  secessionists.  The  very  opposite 
is  true.  All  the  facts  show  it, — the  names  themselves, 
the  voting  at  all  the  elections,  and  the  logic  of  the  fig 
ures  which  show  that  more  than  three  times  as  many  en- 
listed  as  Union  soldiers  as  there  were  Confederate  soldiers 
from  Kentucky. 

Of  those  mentioned  it  may  be  said  that  all  had  at 
tained  distinction  in  professional  or  business  life,  and  in 
public  service  before  the  war.  It  would  be  an  endless  task 
to  enumerate  all  who  achieved  high  position  by  service 
in  the  war.  There  were  four  thousand  commissioned 
officers,  most  of  them  young  men  who  began  their  career 


The  Union  Leaders  73 

in  military  life,  and  afterwards  engaged  in  pursuits  which 
established  them  as  the  most  valuable  citizens  of  the 
State,  or  of  other  States  to  which  many  removed.  This 
great  body  of  Kentucky  Unionists  must  remain  unnamed 
in  the  list  here  to  be  presented. 

Hon.  John  J.  Crittenden  was  the  most  eminent  of  the 
Union  leaders.  He  was  mature  in  life  and  had  had  a 
great  and  honorable  career.  Born  in  1786,  he  served  in 
the  War  of  1812,  and  was  Attorney-General  in  Harrison's 
Cabinet;  had  served  in  Congress,  had  been  Governor  of 
his  State,  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  period  was  a 
United  States  Senator,  having  served  in  the  Senate 
altogether  for  twenty  years.  All  charges  against  the 
Union  leaders  fall  upon  him  as  well  as  others,  which  is 
proof  of  their  baselessness. 

James  Guthrie  was  one  of  Kentucky's  greatest  men. 
He  was  an  able  lawyer;  had  been  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  in  the  Cabinet  of  President  Pierce;  was 
President  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1849.  ^n 
the  war  period  he  was  President  of  the  Louisville  & 
Nashville  railroad,  and  as  such  is  mentioned  by  General 
Sherman  as  follows: 

"I  have  always  felt  grateful  to  Mr.  Guthrie  of  Louis 
ville,  who  had  sense  enough  and  patriotism  enough  to 
subordinate  the  interests  of  his  railroad  to  the  cause  of  his 
country."  (Memoirs,  vol.  ii.,  p.  12.) 

Hon.  Joshua  F.  Bell,  who  had  served  in  Congress.  He 
made  the  race  for  Governor  against  Magoffin,  and  was 
one  of  the  most  gifted  men  and  powerful  orators  in  the 
State. 

Judge  S.  S.  Nicholas,  the  son  of  the  celebrated  George 
Nicholas  of  Virginia,  was  distinguished  alike  for  his  great 
abilities  and  high  character.  He  was  eminent  as  a  lawyer 
and  judge.  So  earnest  was  he  in  his  Unionism  that  it  is 
said  of  him  in  his  biography,  "he  probably  did  more  thaa 
any  other  man  toward  saving  the  State  to  the  Union." 


74  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Rev.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge,  D.D.,  uncle  of  John  C. 
Breckinridge,  was  the  most  intellectual  member  of  a 
family  noted  for  intellect.  His  trenchant  pen  and 
eloquent  voice  were  unceasingly  exerted  to  save  the 
Union. 

Hon.  James  F.  Robinson,  "The  mentor  of  the  Scott 
County  Bar."  He  was  made  Governor  in  1862,  upon 
the  resignation  of  Governor  Magoffin. 

Hon.  Charles  A.  Wickliffe,  whose  distinguished  career 
in  the  legislative  halls,  both  of  the  State  and  Nation,  and 
in  the  Cabinet  of  President  Tyler,  and  in  the  gubernato 
rial  chair,  together  with  his  high  personal  character, 
made  him,  in  the  crucial  period,  one  of  the  chiefs  among 
the  Union  leaders. 

Hon.  Archibald  Dixon,  distinguished  as  a  lawyer  and 
statesman.  He  had  been  Governor  of  Kentucky  and 
United  States  Senator. 

Hon.  James  Harlan,  the  father  of  Justice  John  M. 
Harlan,  who  had  served  in  the  State  Legislature,  in  Con 
gress,  and  as  Attorney-General  of  Kentucky. 

Hon.  Garrett  Davis,  who  served  in  the  State  Legisla 
ture,  four  terms  in  Congress,  and  in  the  United  States 
Senate. 

Hon.  George  Robertson,  the  learned  and  justly  cele 
brated  Chief  Justice  of  Kentucky. 

Hon.  Charles  S.  Todd,  whose  father,  Thomas  Todd, 
was  one  of  the  early  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court.  He 
served  as  Colonel  in  the  War  of  1812,  was  Minister  to 
Russia  under  President  Tyler,  and  filled  many  other 
positions,  State  and  National. 

Hon.  James  Speed,  a  learned  and  able  lawyer.  He 
filled  many  honorable  positions  in  the  State,  and  was 
Attorney-General  in  President  Lincoln's  Cabinet. 

Hon.  Francis  M.  Bristow,  who  was  an  able  lawyer  and 
served  in  the  State  Legislature,  and  in  Congress,  and  was 
a  member  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1849. 


The  Union  Leaders  75 

Hon.  William  H.  Wadsworth,  the  noted  lawyer  and 
orator  of  Maysville.  He  served  in  Congress,  and  was 
tendered  the  mission  to  the  court  of  Vienna. 

Hon.  William  A.  Dudley,  the  prominent  railroad 
president  of  Lexington. 

Hon.  John  B.  Huston,  of  whom  it  is  said  by  his 
biographer,  "he  was  one  of  the  most  distinguished  men 
who  supported  the  policy  of  the  government." 

Hon.  George  D.  Prentice,  editor  of  the  Louisville 
Journal,  and  the  most  brilliant  newspaper  writer  of  his 
day. 

Hon.  John  H.  Harney,  editor  of  the  Louisville 
Democrat. 

Hon.  A.  G.  Hodges,  editor  of  the  Frankfort 
Commonwealth. 

Hon.  Joseph  R.  Underwood,  of  Bowling  Green,  one 
of  the  ablest  judges  who  ever  served  on  the  bench  of  the 
Court  of  Appeals,  who  also  served  in  the  United  States 
Senate. 

Hon.  Joshua  F.  Speed,  a  man  of  affairs,  and  great 
ability.  He  served  in  the  State  Legislature;  was  the 
trusted  friend  of  President  Lincoln. 

Hon.  Charles  A.  Marshall,  of  Maysville,  one  of  the 
celebrated  Virginia  family.  He  had  served  many  times 
in  the  State  Legislature,  and  became  Colonel  of  the  i6th 
Kentucky  Infantry. 

Hon.  Leslie  Combs,  of  Lexington,  a  lawyer  of  high 
repute,  who  had  served  in  the  War  of  1812,  and  repre 
sented  his  district  a  number  of  times  in  the  State 
Legislature. 

Hon.  Curtis  F.  Burnam,  of  Richmond,  prominent  in 
the  State,  and  had  served  in  the  State  Legislature. 

Hon.  Henry  Pirtle,  the  eminent  Chancellor  of  Louis 
ville,  distinguished  for  his  great  ability  and  lofty  character. 

General  T.  T.  Garrard,  of  Manchester,  who  was  a 
Captain  in  the  Mexican  War,  had  served  in  the  State 


76  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Senate,  and  became  Brigadier-General  in  the  Union 
army. 

Hon.  James  G.  Garrard,  the  brother  of  General 
T.  T.  Garrard.  He  had  been  elected  State  Treas 
urer  in  1859,  at  ^e  same  time  Magoffm  was  elected 
Governor. 

Colonel  James  F.  Buckner,  of  Hopkinsville,  who  had 
been  Speaker  of  the  House,  and  also  served  in  the  State 
Senate.  He  raised  one  of  the  first  Union  regiments  in 
the  State. 

General  William  T.  Ward,  of  Greensburg,  noted  as  a 
lawyer,  had  represented  his  district  in  the  Legislature,  and 
became  a  Major-General  in  the  Union  army. 

Hon.  George  B.  Kinkead,  of  Lexington,  an  able 
lawyer,  and  had  served  as  Secretary  of  State. 

Hon.  Lucien  Anderson,  of  Mayfield,  who  had  served  in 
the  State  Legislature,  and  also  in  Congress. 

Hon.  John  H.  McHenry,  of  Owensboro,  who  had 
served  in  the  State  Legislature,  in  Congress,  and  as  an 
able  Circuit  Judge. 

Hon.  Thomas  E.  Bramlette,  a  Circuit  Judge,  who  raised 
an  infantry  regiment,  and  afterwards  became  Brigadier- 
General  and  Governor. 

Hon.  Jerre  T.  Boyle,  of  Danville,  a  leading  lawyer,  who 
became  Brigadier-General. 

Hon.  George  T.  Wood,  of  Munfordsville,  who  several 
times  represented  his  district  in  the  Legislature,  and 
was  a  member  of  the  "  Military  Board."  He  was  trie 
father  of  General  Thomas  J.  Wood. 

General  Thomas  J.  Wood,  educated  at  West  Point, 
served  in  the  Mexican  war,  became  a  distinguished 
general  in  the  Union  army  and  in  the  regular  army. 

Hon.  Robert  Mallory,  of  Louisville,  who  served  twice 
in  Congress. 

Hon.  Thomas  H.  Clay,  the  second  son  of  Henry  Clay, 
and  a  leading  citizen  of  Kentucky. 


The  Union  Leaders  77 

Hon.  Joseph  Holt,  of  Louisville,  in  the  Cabinet  of 
James  Buchanan,  and  of  National  reputation. 

Hon.  David  R.  Murray,  of  Cloverport,  who  had  served 
several  times  in  the  State  Legislature. 

Hon.  George  H.  Yeaman,  of  Owensboro,  a  most 
accomplished  lawyer,  who  served  in  the  Legislature,  in 
Congress,  and  as  a  foreign  minister. 

General  Speed  S.  Fry,  of  Danville,  a  Mexican  veteran, 
who  became  Brigadier-General  in  the  Union  army. 

Hon.  Cassius  M.  Clay,  a  man  of  great  talents,  who  was 
appointed  Major-General,  and  also  made  Minister  to 
Russia  by  President  Lincoln. 

Judge  R.  K.  Williams,  of  Paducah,  a  leading  lawyer, 
who  became  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals. 

Judge  Jesse  W.  Kincheloe,  of  Brandenburg. 

Hon.  Brutus  J.  Clay,  of  Bourbon  County,  member  o 
the  State  Legislature. 

Hon.  R.  A.  Buckner,  of  Lexington,  a  noted  lawyei  , 
was  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals;  served  several  times 
in  the  Legislature  and  in  Congress. 

Dr.  Ethelbert  L.  Dudley,  of  Lexington,  first  Colonel 
of  the  2 1st  Kentucky  Infantry,  and  the  father  of  Mrs. 
General  Joseph  C.  Breckinridge,  U.S.A. 

Hon.  Thornton  F.  Marshall,  of  Bracken  County, 
member  of  the  State  Senate. 

Hon.  James  Sudduth,  of  Bath  County. 

Hon.  John  B.  Wilgus,  of  Lexington. 

Hon.  Richard  Apperson,  of  Montgomery,  member  of 
the  State  Legislature. 

Hon.  Aylette  H.  Buckner,  of  Winchester. 

Colonel  Thomas  M.  Green,  editor  Maysville Eagle,  and 
writer  of  rare  ability;  served  with  Colonel  William  H. 
Wadsworth,  commander  of  the  State  troops  in  the 
Maysville  district. 

Dr.  James  M.  Bush,  of  Lexington,  Professor  in 
Transylvania  University. 


78  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Hon.  Alfred  Allen,  of  Breckinridge  County,  member  of 
State  Legislature,  and  was  Minister  to  China. 

Hon.  A.  J.  Ballard,  a  prominent  lawyer  of  Louisville. 

Hon.  Nat  Wolfe,  of  Louisville,  a  noted  lawyer,  who 
served  in  the  Legislature,  House  and  Senate. 

General  James  S.  Jackson,  of  Hopkinsville,  member  of 
Congress,  who  became  a  Brigadier-General,  and  was 
killed  at  Perryville. 

Hon.  A.  G.  Hobson,  of  Greensburg,  lawyer  and 
banker. 

General  E.  H.  Hobson,  of  Greensburg,  who  became 
Brigadier-General. 

Judge  W.  C.  Goodloe,  of  Lexington,  Circuit  Judge  for 
twenty-two  years. 

General  D.  S.  Goodloe,  Lexington. 

Colonel  Leonidas  Metcalfe,  of  Nicholas  County,  son  of 
Governor  Metcalfe  of  Kentucky. 

Hon.  John  M.  Harlan  had  served  as  county  judge, 
and  had  made  the  race  for  Congress  in  his  district  prior 
to  the  war;  was  Colonel  of  the  loth  Kentucky  Infantry; 
Attorney-General  of  the  State,  and  is  now  Associate  Jus 
tice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States'. 

Judge  Richard  J.  Browne,  of  Springfield,  member  of 
the  State  Legislature. 

Hon.  William  H.  Hays,  of  Springfield,  member  of  the 
State  Legislature;  became  Colonel  of  the  loth  Kentucky 
Infantry  and  Judge  of  the  United  States  District  Court  at 
Louisville. 

Colonel  William  P.  Boone,  of  Louisville,  a  noted  lawyer 
and  member  of  the  Legislature,  and  Colonel  28th 
Kentucky  Infantry. 

Hon.  James  Weir,  of  Owensboro,  a  wealthy  banker  and 
lawyer. 

Judge  P.  B.  Muir,  of  Louisville,  an  able  lawyer  and 
Circuit  Judge. 

Hon.  Joshua  Tevis,  of  Louisville,  several  times  in  the 


The  Union  Leaders  79 

Legislature,  and  became  Colonel  of  the  loth  Kentucky 
Cavalry. 

Colonel  Laban  T.  Moore,  <of  Catlettsburg,  a  distin 
guished  lawyer,  member  of  Congress  and  State  Legisla 
ture,  and  who  raised  the  I4th  Kentucky  Infantry,  of 
which  he  was  Colonel. 

Judge  George  W.  Williams,  of  Paris,  Bourbon  County, 
an  eminent  lawyer  and  judge,  who  served  in  both  Houses 
of  the  Legislature. 

Hon.  John  A.  Prall,  of  Paris,  an  eminent  lawyer,  who 
served  in  the  State  Senate. 

Allen  A.  Burton,  of  Garrard,  who  was  appointed 
Minister  to  Colombia. 

R.  A.  Burton,  of  Lebanon,  a  fine  lawyer,  who  served 
in  the  State  Senate  and  House. 

Hon.  John  B.  Bruner,  of  Hardinsburg,  a  noted  lawyer 
and  member  of  the  State  Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives. 

Hon.  Aaron  Harding,  of  Boyle,  several  times  in 
Congress. 

Hon.  John  B.  Temple,  of  Frankfort,  a  leading  hanker, 
who  became  member  of  the  "Military  Board." 

Hon.  Madison  C.  Johnson,  of  Lexington,  the  learned 
and  distinguished  lawyer,  President  of  the  Northern 
Bank  of  Kentucky. 

Judge  James  Stuart,  of  Brandenburg,  a  noted  lawyer, 
Judge,  and  member  of  the  Legislature. 

Hon.  L.  W.  Andrews,  of  Flemingsburg,  lawyer  and 
statesman,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  men  in  north 
eastern  Kentucky;  served  in  the  Legislature  and  in 
Congress. 

Judge  William  V.  Loving,  of  Bowling  Green,  an  able 
lawyer  and  Judge,  who  served  in  the  Legislature. 

Hon.  Henry  Grider,  of  Bowling  Green,  an  eminent 
lawyer  who  served  in  the  State  Senate  and  House  and  also 
in  Congress. 


So  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Colonel  B.  C.  Grider,  of  Bowling  Green ;  was  Colonel 
in  the  Union  army. 

Hon.  John  F.  Fisk,  of  -Covington,  a  leading  lawyer, 
served  in  the  State  Senate,  over  which  he  presided,  and 
was  ex  officio  Lieutenant-Governor. 

Hon.  J.  K.  Goodloe,  of  Louisville,  an  eminent  lawyer, 
member  of  the  Legislature  in  both  Houses. 

Hon.  Martin  P.  Marshall,  of  Fleming  County,  a  promi 
nent  lawyer  and  member  of  the  Legislature. 

Colonel  George  W.  Gallup,  of  Louisa,  a  leading  lawyer 
of  that  part  of  the  State,  and  became  Colonel  of  the  I4th 
Kentucky  Infantry. 

Colonel  R.  T.  Jacob,  of  Louisville,  a  lawyer  and  a 
veteran  of  the  Mexican  war,  and  became  Colonel  of  the 
9th  Kentucky  Cavalry. 

Hon.  Warner  L.  Underwood,  of  Bowling  Green,  a 
prominent  lawyer,  serving  in  the  State  Legislature  and  in 
Congress. 

Hon.  Bland  Ballard,  of  Louisville,  a  leading  lawyer  and 
was  appointed  Judge  of  the  District  Court  of  the 
United  States. 

Hon.  John  W.  Barr,  an  able  lawyer  who  became  Judge 
of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Hon.  Caleb  W.  Logan,  Ex-Chancellor  of  the  Louisville 
Chancery  Court. 

General  Thomas  L.  Crittenden,  of  Frankfort,  who 
served  in  the  Mexican  war  on  General  Taylor's  staff,  and 
afterwards  became  Major-General  in  the  civil  war  and 
Brigadier-General  in  the  regular  army. 

General  Lovell  H.  Rosseau,  of  Louisville,  a  distin 
guished  lawyer,  served  in  the  Mexican  war  as  Captain, 
became  Major-General  of  Volunteers  in  the  Civil  War 
and  Brigadier-General  in  the  regular  army. 

Colonel  Curran  Pope,  of  Louisville,  was  educated  at 
West  Point,  resigned,  and  was  engaged  in  business  in 
Louisville.  He  raised  the  1 5th  Kentucky  Infantry,  was 


The  Union  Leaders  81 

wounded  in  the  battle  of  Perryville,  and  died  soon 
after. 

General  Green  Clay  Smith,  of  Richmond,  served  in  the 
Mexican  war  as  Lieutenant,  became  a  lawyer,  and  rose  to 
the  rank  of  Brigadier-General  in  the  Civil  War,  and  after 
wards  member  of  Congress. 

General  William  J.  Landrum,  of  Lancaster,  served  in 
the  Mexican  war,  and  became  a  Brigadier-General  in  the 
Civil  War. 

General  John  J.  Landrum,  of  Warsaw,  served  in  the 
Mexican  war,  became  member  of  the  Legislature,  1851, 
was  a  fine  lawyer.  He  became  Colonel  of  the  i8th 
Kentucky  Infantry,  and  Brigadier. 

Colonel  Pierce  Butler  Hawkins,  of  Bowling  Green, 
served  in  the  Legislature,  1850,  and  afterwards  he  raised 
the  nth  Kentucky  Infantry. 

Colonel  Marion  C.  Taylor,  of  Shelbyville.  He  had 
served  in  the  Legislature,  was  a  lawyer  of  ability,  and 
became  Colonel  of  the  i$th  Kentucky  Infantry. 

General  Walter  C.  Whitaker,  of  Shelbyville.  He  was 
a  Lieutenant  in  the  Mexican  war,  served  in  the  Legisla 
ture,  raised  the  6th  Kentucky  Infantry,  and  became 
Major-General  of  volunteers. 

General  James  M.  Shackelford,  of  Madisonville,  a  fine 
lawyer,  served  in  the  Mexican  war,  raised  two  regiments, 
the  2$th  Kentucky  Infantry  and  8th  Cavalry,  and  be 
came  Brigadier-General. 

Dr.  Joshua  T.  Bradford,  of  Augusta,  "probably  the 
second  most  distinguished  surgeon  of  Kentucky" 
(Collins),  who  fought  a  desperate  battle  with  a  command 
of  Home  Guards  against  a  part  of  Morgan's  Cavalry 
(Collins,  vol.  i.,  p.  112). 

Dr.  T.  S.  Bell,  of  Louisville,  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  and  honored  physicians  of  the  State. 

Hon.  Algernon  Sidney  Thurston,  of  Ovvensboro,  a 
retired  lawyer  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  but  active  in 


82  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

the  politics  of  the  day.  He  had  been  Attorney-General 
of  Texas. 

Hon.  Ben  T.  Perkins,  of  Elkton,  a  prominent  lawyer 
of  that  part  of  the  State. 

Hon.  Benjamin  H.  Bristow,  of  Hopkinsville,  an  eminent 
lawyer;  served  as  Colonel  in  the  war;  was  in  the  State 
Senate  and  rose  to  have  a  national  reputation  as  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  H.  G.  Petrie,  of  Elkton,  a  noted  lawyer  and 
member  of  the  Legislature. 

Judge  John  W.  Ritter,  of  Glasgow,  an  eminent  lawyer 
and  Judge,  and  member  of  the  Legislature. 

Hon.  George  M.  Thomas,  of  Vanceburg,  a  lawyer,  who 
served  in  the  Legislature,  represented  his  district  in  the 
National  Congress,  and  became  U.  S.  District  Attorney 
for  Kentucky. 

Hon.  Matt  Mayes,  of  Cadiz,  a  leading,  wealthy,  and 
influential  citizen  of  that  portion  of  the  State. 

Judge  John  E.  Newman,  of  Bardstown,  an  able  lawyer 
and  Circuit  Judge. 

Judge  W.  B.  Kinkead,  of  Lexington,  an  able  lawyer 
and  Circuit  Judge,  who  had  also  served  in  the 
Legislature. 

General  D.  W.  Lindsey,  of  Frankfort,  who  not  only 
stood  for  the  Union  but  served  in  the  field  as  Colonel  of 
the  22d  Kentucky  Infantry,  and  as  Adjutant-General  of 
the  State. 

Colonel  Thomas  B.  Cochran,  of  Shelbyville,  a  lawyer 
of  striking  ability,  who  became  Colonel  of  the  2d 
Kentucky  Cavalry,  and  afterwards  Judge  of  the  Chancery 
Court  of  Louisville. 

General  John  W.  Finnell,  of  Covington,  a  lawyer  of 
ability,  who  served  in  the  Legislature  in  1845.  He  became 
the  editor  of  the  Frankfort  Commonwealth,  and  was 
appointed  Secretary  of  State  by  Governor  Crittenden, 
and  was  Adjutant-General  under  Governor  Robinson. 


The  Union  Leaders  83 

Silas  F.  Miller,  of  Louisville,  prominent  as  a  business 
man. 

Captain  Z.  M.  Sherley,  of  Louisville,  prominent  as  a 
business  man. 

Sam  Gill,  of  Louisville,  prominent  in  railroad  affairs, 
and  became  a  member  of  the  "Military  Board." 

B.  F.  Avery,  of  Louisville,  prominent  as  a  business 
man. 

Hon.  John  W.  Menzies,  of  Covington,  an  able  lawyer; 
served  in  the  Legislature,  1848  and  1855,  and  was  elected 
to  Congress,  June,  1861. 

Judge  T.  T.  Alexander,  of  Columbia,  a  lawyer  of 
ability,  Circuit  Judge,  and  public-spirited  citizen. 

Dr.  George  D.  Blakey,  of  Russellville,  later  of  Bowling 
Green. 

Hon.  John  G.  Barret,  lawyer  and  banker,  of  Louisville. 

Hon.  Sidney  M.  Barnes,  of  Estill  County;  a  lawyer 
of  note,  served  in  the  State  Senate  and  House,  1848, 
1857,  and  was  candidate  for  Governor.  He  raised  and 
commanded  the  8th  Kentucky  Infantry. 

Judge  M.  H.  Owsley,  of  Lancaster,  a  lawyer  and 
Circuit  Judge. 

Philip  Swigert,  of  Frankfort,  born  1798,  a  most 
influential  citizen.  During  the  war  he  was  secretary  of 
the  "  Military  Board." 

Hon.  Joseph  B.  Kinkead,  of  Louisville,  a  wealthy  and 
influential  lawyer. 

Hon.  Hamilton  Pope,  of  Louisville,  a  distinguished 
lawyer,  early  in  the  war  became  commander  of  the  Louis 
ville  Home  Guard. 

Colonel  Charles  D.  Pennebaker,  of  Lousville,  a  lawyer. 
He  served  in  the  Mexican  war,  in  the  State  Legislature, 
and  was  Colonel  of  the  27th  Kentucky  Infantry. 

Hon.  Joshua  F.  Bullitt,  Judge  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals,  and  one  of  the  most  eminent  and  honored  men 
in  the  State;  he  was  a  Union  leader  all  through  the 


84  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

year  1861.  The  charges  of  bad  faith  so  freely  made 
against  those  leaders  fall  upon  him  as  well  as  others, 
which  goes  to  prove  how  baseless  were  all  such  charges. 

Hon.  George  W.  Dunlap,  of  Lancaster,  a  prominent 
lawyer  and  member  of  Congress. 

Hon.  R.  Tarvin  Baker,  of  Campbell  County,  a  noted 
lawyer,  member  of  the  Legislature,  1849,  a^so  was  State 
Senator. 

Captain  George  M.  Adams,  a  business  man  of 
Barbourville. 

Hon.  John  H.  McFarland,  of  Owensboro,  who  was  a 
prominent  lawyer  and  had  served  in  the  Legislature. 

M.  M.  Benton,  of  Covington,  lawyer,  railroad  presi 
dent,  and  member  of  the  Legislature. 

Reuben  Mundy,  of  Madison  County,  member  of  the 
State  Senate,  afterwards  Colonel  of  the  6th  Kentucky 
Cavalry. 

Colonel  Lyne  Starling,  of  Frankfort. 

Hon.  A.  G.  Hobson,  of  Bowling  Green. 

Hon.  Burrell  C.  Ritter,  of  Hopkinsville,  member  of 
State  Senate  and  lower  House,  and  also  member  of 
Congress. 

George  P.  Doern,  editor  of  the  Louisville  Anzeiger ,  who 
represented  the  practically  unanimous  German  element  of 
the  State. 

Hon.  William  H.  Randall,  of  London,  a  Circuit  Judge, 
and  twice  member  of  Congress. 

Hon.  Q.  C.  Shanks,  a  prominent  man  of  Hartford, 
who  raised  and  led  the  I2th  Kentucky  Cavalry. 

To  this  list,  already  prolonged  beyond  the  limits  at  first 
assigned,  might  be  added  many  others.  Those  who  are 
named  were  not  simply  "  Union  men."  They  were 
recognized  leaders  among  the  people. 

The  first  suggestion  was  to  name  twenty-five  of  the 
most  distinguished,  but  the  list  easily  enlarged  to  fifty, 
and  as  easily  grew  to  a  hundred,  and  to  a  hundred  and 


The  Union  Leaders  85 

fifty  and  more.  There  is  no  intention  to  attempt  to  name 
all  the  Union  men  who  were  prominent :  the  purpose  is  to 
direct  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Union  leaders  were 
numerous,  and  that  they  were  the  conspicuous  men  in 
the  State  and  in  every  community.  Those  named  were 
native-born  Kentuckians,  and  had  filled  honorable 
positions  before  the  war.  They  were  men  of  the  highest 
character,  intellectually,  morally,  and  socially.  They 
were  qualified  for  leadership,  and  this  position  was 
naturally  accorded  to  them  by  their  fellow-citizens.  They 
were  capable  of  forming  and  directing  public  sentiment, 
and  in  the  great  emergency  of  1861  they  threw  them 
selves  into  the  struggle  for  the  Union.  They  were  not 
of  the  class  who  acted  individually  in  thinking  and 
voting,  but  who  were  active,  energetic,  and  positive  in 
efforts  to  accomplish  a  great  purpose.  They  worked 
for  the  cause  of  the  Union,  giving  their  time  and  talents 
and  means.  They  originated  and  carried  out  move 
ments  at  large,  and  in  their  respective  localities.  They 
inaugurated  meetings  and  attended  them,  and  made 
patriotic  speeches,  unsparingly  and  unselfishly  promoting 
by  all  of  the  means  in  their  power  the  cause  of  the  Union 
as  against  the  industrious  effort  to  create  a  feeling  among 
the  people  tending  to  secession. 

Associated  with  these  leaders  were  hundreds  who 
were  men  of  weight  in  their  respective  communities. 
These  all  catching  inspiration  from  the  recognized  lead 
ers,  exerted  an  influence  upon  the  masses  and  gave 
direction  to  the  voting.  If  such  had  not  been  the  case, 
it  is  possible  the  heart  of  the  people  might  have  been 
fired  with  the  inflammatory  utterances  intended  to  carry 
them  into  secession.  With  the  splendid  leadership  which 
marked  the  Union  cause  in  Kentucky  there  naturally 
followed  a  consistent  and  steady  adherence  to  the  Union 
on  the  part  of  the  Kentucky  voters.  There  is  nothing 
but  reason  and  calm,  intelligent  judgment  in  the  spectacle 


86  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

of  the  voting  in  1860  and  1861.  The  presence  of 
passion  and  excitement  would  have  carried  the  people  in 
the  other  direction. 

When,  therefore,  the  present  glory  of  the  American 
Republic  is  contemplated,  and  when  we  reflect  that  the 
views  of  Abraham  Lincoln  might  have  been  correct,  that 
"  Kentucky  would  be  a  turning  weight  in  the  scale  of 
war,"  the  feeling  must  arise  that  the  country  owes  a 
debt  of  gratitude  to  the  great  men  of  Kentucky  who,  at 
the  critical  moment,  exerted  all  their  energies,  and 
devoted  all  their  abilities  to  the  task  of  saving  Kentucky 
to  the  Union.  It  is  true  that  when,  under  the  inevitable 
workings  of  the  law  of  progressive  development,  Mr. 
Lincoln's  ideas  on  the  subject  of  the  slaves  advanced  from 
what  they  were  at  the  outset  to  such  as  produced  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation,  the  views  of  many  persons 
in  Kentucky  did  not  advance  with  his.  Some  became  anti- 
Lincoln,  but  they  were  still  Unionists.  They  did  not  by 
any  means  join  in  the  rebellion.  The  extent  of  their 
opposition  to  Lincoln  was  an  active  support  of  McClellan, 
with  the  universally  expressed  view  that  he  would  bring 
about  the  restoration  of  the  Union.  They  supported 
him  because  of  his  avowed  purpose,  if  elected,  to  use  all 
the  men  and  money  necessary  to  suppress  the  rebellion 
and  maintain  the  authority  of  the  Union. 


CHAPTER  VII 

ELECTIONS  IN  l86l 

THREE  general   elections  occurred  in    Kentucky   in 
the  year  1861,  all  of  which  showed  unmistakably 
that  the  people  did  not  favor  the  Southern  movement, 
but  were  heartily  on  the  side  of  the  Union. 

The  first  of  these  elections  took  place  May  4th,  and 
was  for  delegates  to  the  Border  State  convention  which 
had  been  called  to  meet  at  Frankfort  May  2/th.  There 
were  in  the  field  two  sets  of  candidates,  one  being  all  Union 
men  of  pronounced  type,  the  other  all  Southern  Rights 
men.  During  the  canvass,  on  April  2Qth,  the  Southern 
Rights  candidates  were  withdrawn  by  the  committee  of 
that  party,  the  reason  for  doing  so  alleged  to  be  that  they 
were  charged  with  favoring  secession,  but  the  real  reason, 
doubtless,  was  that  it  was  apparent  that  they  would  be 
defeated.  The  Union  candidates,  however,  stood  for 
election  and  were  voted  for.  They  were  John  J. 
Crittenden,  James  Guthrie,  R.  K.  Williams,  F.  M. 
Bristow,  Joshua  F.  Bell,  John  B.  Huston,  Archibald 
Dixon,  Charles  A.  Wickliffe,  Charles  S.  Morehead.  The 
vote  cast  for  these  men  was  110,000,  or  more  than  two 
thirds  of  the  total  vote  cast  for  all  the  Presidential 
candidates  in  November,  1860.  This  vote  was  cast  after 
the  secession  of  ten  of  the  States;  after  the  organization 
of  the  Southern  Confederacy;  and  after  the  State 
Legislature  had  refused  to  call  a  convention  to  consider 
secession.  It  was  regarded  as  a  most  decided  expression 
in  favor  of  the  Union,  and  against  seceding.  It  made  a 

87 


88  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

profound  impression  upon  the  country.  Hon.  Joseph 
Holt,  at  that  time  in  Washington,  wrote  his  memorable 
letter  to  Joshua  F.  Speed  at  Louisville,  which  began  with 
the  words : 

"The  recent  overwhelming  vote  in  favor  of  the  Union 
in  Kentucky  has  afforded  unspeakable  gratification  to 
all  true  men  throughout  the  country." 

The  second  election  was  on  the  2Oth  of  June,  and  was 
a  congressional  election.  President  Lincoln  had  called  a 
special  session  of  Congress  to  meet  July  4th,  and  this 
rendered  it  necessary  to  hold  a  special  election  for 
Congressmen  in  the  State  of  Kentucky.  Union  candi 
dates  were  nominated  and  also  Southern  Rights  or 
secession  candidates.  Nine  of  the  ten  elected  were 
Union  men,  and  the  popular  majority  in  the  State  was 
54,670.  This  tremendous  majority  was  not  made  up  by 
an  overwhelming  vote  in  any  particular  section,  but  was 
fairly  distributed  all  over  the  State,  as  the  following 
statement  in  detail  shows : 

In  the  First  District,  which  was  the  extreme  west  end 
of  the  State,  Henry  C.  Burnett,  States  Rights,  8988; 
his  opponent,  Lawrence  S.  Trimble,  Union,  6225,  the 
majority  of  the  district  being  2763  against  the  Union 
and  in  favor  of  secession.  In  this  connection  it  is  proper 
to  state  that  Mr.  Burnett,  instead  of  sitting  in  the 
National  Congress,  went  South  in  the  fall  of  1861  and 
represented  Kentucky  in  the  Confederate  Congress. 

In  the  Second  District,  also  in  the  western  part  of  the 
State,  James  S.  Jackson,  Union,  9271 ;  his  opponent, 
John  T.  Bunch,  secessionist,  3368;  majority  for  the 
Union,  5903.  Jackson  went  to  Congress,  but  in  a  few 
weeks  resigned  his  seat  to  go  back  to  Kentucky  to  raise 
troops  for  the  Union  cause.  He  raised  and  organized  the 
magnificent  Third  Kentucky  Cavalry,  became  its  Colonel, 
was  made  Brigadier-General,  and  was  killed  at  Perryville 
October  8,  1862. 


Elections  in  1861  89 

In  the  Third  District,  central  southern  part  of  the 
State,  Henry  Grider,  the  Union  candidate,  received 
10,392  votes,  and  his  opponent,  Joseph  H.  Lewis,  3113; 
majority,  7259.  Lewis  went  into  the  Confederacy  and 
became  a  Brigadier-General. 

In  the  Fourth  District,  central  southern,  Aaron  Hard 
ing,  Union,  10344;  A.  G.  Talbott,  2469;  Union  majority, 

7875. 

In  the  Fifth  District,  central,  Charles  A.  Wickliffe, 
Union,  8217,  and  his  opponent,  Read,  2719;  Union 
majority,  5498. * 

In  the  Sixth  District,  central,  George  W.  Dunlap, 
Union,  8181;  scattering,  229. 

In  the  Seventh  District,  which  included  Louisville, 
Robert  Mallory,  Union,  11,035;  his  opponent,  H.  W. 
Bruce,  2862;  majority,  8173.  Mr.  Bruce  afterwards  went 
South  and  became  a  Congressman  from  Kentucky  in  the 
Confederacy. 

In  the  Eighth  District,  which  included  Frankfort  and 
Lexington,  John  J.  Crittenden,  Union,  8272 ;  his 
opponent,  William  E.  Simms,  5706;  majority,  2366. 

In  the  Ninth  District,  which  included  Maysville, 
William  H.  Wadsworth,  Union,  12,230;  his  opponent, 
John  S.  Williams,  3720;  majority,  8510.  Williams 
afterward  became  a  Brigadier-General  in  the  Confederacy, 
while  Wadsworth  fought  for  the  Union  and  was  the 
principal  figure  in  the  Union  cause  in  his  part  of  the 
State. 

In  the  Tenth  District,  John  W.  Menzies,  Union, 
8370;  his  opponent,  O.  P.  Hogan,  4526;  majority, 

3847. 

The  third  election  in  Kentucky  in  1861  was  on  the  fifth 
day  of  August,  being  an  election  for  representatives  in 
the  State  Legislature.  Two  weeks  prior  to  August  5th 
the  battle  of  Bull  Run  had  been  fought.  The  occurrence 

1  See  Appendix,  §  8,  p.  343. 


90  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

of  an  event  so  significant  was  certainly  calculated  to 
enlighten  the  Kentucky  people  on  the  subject  of  the  war. 
It  was  plain  the  issue  had  to  be  fought  out,  and  the  issue 
was  between  the  Federal  government  and  the  newly 
organized  Confederacy.  How  did  the  people  vote  when 
the  issue  thus  confronted  them  so  plainly? 

The  remarkable  fact  is  they  voted  for  the  Union  by  a 
larger  majority  than  ever  before.  One  hundred  and 
three  Unionists  were  elected  to  the  State  Legislature — 
Senate  and  House — and  thirty-eight  of  the  opposing 
party.  The  popular  majority  was  increased  over  that  of 
June.  When  these  majorities  are  considered,  being 
between  fifty  and  sixty  thousand,  and  when  it  is  under 
stood  that  they  were  absolutely  free  elections,  without 
interference  of  any  kind,  as  at  that  time  there  were  no 
soldiers  of  either  side  in  the  State,  it  becomes  manifest 
beyond  any  possible  cavil  that  Kentucky  voted  against 
secession,  and  took  her  stand  for  the  Union. 

It  is  of  interest  here  to  mention  the  vote  cast  at  this 
election  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  the  metropolis  of  the 
State.  James  Speed,  Union  candidate  for  the  State 
Senate,  received  4788  votes.  His  opponent,  Jefferson 
Brown,  605.  A.  B.  Semple,  Union  candidate  for  the 
State  Senate,  received  4615.  His  opponent,  Gamble, 
902.  For  the  lower  House: 

Beeman,     Union,    2141;    his    opponent,     Brinly,    63 

Nat.   Wolfe,   Union,  1680 ;  his  opponent,    Rudd,   321 

W.  P.  Boone,  Union,    1990;  his  opponent,  Joyes,  351 

Joshua  Tevis,  Union,  958;  his  opponent,  Johnston,  305 

In  the  county  of  Jefferson,  being  the  county  in  which 

Louisville  is  situated,  the  Union  veteran  editor  of  the 

Louisville  Democrat,    John    H.   Harney,  received     1583 

votes,  and  his  opponent,  David  Meriwether,  628. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find  any  instance,  in  any  State 
or  country,  where  questions  are  determined  by  voting,  a 
more  satisfactory  settlement  of  any  question  than  that  of 


Elections  in  1861  91 

union  or  secession  in  Kentucky.  The  people  at  absolutely 
free  and  untrammelled  elections,  declared  against  going 
South  and  in  favor  of  the  Union.  It  is  surprising,  there 
fore,  to  find  in  histories  written  since  the  war,  expressions 
to  the  contrary.  In  Z.  F.  Smith's  History  of  Kentucky 
(p.  610)  he  mentions  the  June  and  August  elections,  and 
says: 

"It  were  well-nigh  certain  that  if  a  sovereignty  convention 
could  have  been  called  at  any  time  before  the  formation  of 
the  Union  sentiment  and  policy  into  active  and  aggressive  life, 
the  State  would  have  been  carried  off  into  the  act  of  seces 
sion  as  Virginia  and  Tennessee  were  by  the  sense  of  sympathy 
and  kinship  toward  the  South." 

This  is  the  view  also  of  Shaler  (p.  240),  who  says : 

"There  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  course  [neutrality]  was 
the  only  one  that  could  have  kept  Kentucky  from  secession. 
If  what  had  been  unhappily  named  a  Sovereignty  Convention 
had  been  called  in  1861 ;  if  the  State  had  been  compelled  to  ac 
cept  the  decision  of  a  body  of  men  who  were  acting  under  the 
control  of  no  constitutional  enunciation,  the  sense  of  sympathy 
and  kinship  with  the  Southern  States,  such  as  would  easily 
grow  up  under  popular  oratory  in  a  mob,  would  probably  have 
precipitated  action." 

This  is  simply  speculation,  not  history,  and  the 
speculation  is  contradicted  by  the  historic  facts.  The 
Union  leaders  of  the  time  may  well  have  dreaded  the 
possibilities  of  a  convention,  and  were  wise  to  oppose 
this  first  step  leading  toward  possible  secession.  But  the 
historian,  looking  back  upon  the  voting  of  1860  and  upon 
the  voting  of  1861,  can  see  with  undimmed  vision  that 
the  people  of  Kentucky  deeply  and  truly  sided  with  the 
Union  against  all  the  allurements  to  go  South.  They 
were  in  serious  earnest  in  regarding  secession  as  no 
remedy  for  anything.  If  a  convention  had  been  called  it 
is  clear  now  that  Union  men  would  have  been  elected  to 


92  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

it.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  complexion  of 
such  a  convention  would  have  been  anything  else  than 
Union.  The  people  elected  all  Union  men  to  the 
Border  State  convention  in  May;  they  elected  nine  of 
the  ten  Congressmen  in  June,  and  two  thirds  of  the 
Legislature  in  August.  The  men  they  elected  were  true 
to  the  trust  reposed  in  them.  Why  should  it  be  sup 
posed  for  a  moment  that  the  case  would  have  been 
different  if  the  people  had  elected  members  to  a 
convention? 

The  important  historic  fact  is,  that  the  people  of 
Kentucky  voted  for  and  elected  Union  men  at  every  elec 
tion  when  called  upon  to  vote. 

It  will  be  seen,  however,  that  the  leaders  of  the 
secession  movement  were  not  satisfied.  They  professed 
"  States  Rights  "  doctrine,  but  they  were  not  content  to 
let  their  own  State  determine  for  herself.  To  the 
extent  these  leaders  went  South  and  influenced  others  to 
go  with  them,  all  went  contrary  to  the  expressed  will  of 
their  State.  It  will  be  seen  that  they  acted  toward 
Kentucky  as  though  it  had  no  right  to  remain  in  the 
Union.  Beaten  overwhelmingly  at  the  polls,  they  went 
into  the  armies  of  the  Confederate  States,  and  came  back 
to  coerce  their  own  State;  fighting  for  States  Rights, 
and  yet  disregarding  the  rights  of  their  own  State; 
fighting  against  "coercion"  and  yet  striving  to  "coerce" 
their  own  State  out  of  her  chosen  position  into  one  they 
chose  for  her,  and  one  which  she  solemnly  protested 
against. 

Applying  all  the  tests  conceivable,  the  position  of  the 
Kentucky  Unionists,  from  first  to  last,  was  absolutely 
right. 

In  the  first  place,  they  had  the  right  to  adhere  to  the 
Union  if  they  so  chose.  No  matter  how  much  it  may  be 
urged  that  they  had  the  right  to  secede,  no  one  can  deny 
that  they  had  the  right  to  refuse  to  secede.  In  the 


Elections  in  1861  93 

second  place,  the  people  having  voted  to  remain  in  the 
Union,  upon  any  theory  of  "States  Rights,"  the  Unionists 
who  followed  the  flag  of  the  Union  afterward  did  so  in 
obedience  to  the  will  of  the  people  expressed  at  the  polls. 
In  the  third  place,  the  people  of  Kentucky  were  right  in  re 
maining  true  to  the  Union.  Their  expression,  " secession 
is  a  remedy  for  no  evil,"  was  absolutely  true.  Secession 
meant  a  broken-up  Union  and  a  broken-up  Republic.  It 
was  inherently  fallacious  and  wrong.  Its  failure  estab 
lished  the  Union  and  our  great  Republic  on  a  firmer  basis 
than  it  ever  had  before,  and  instead  of  our  land  being 
Mexicanized,  the  triumph  of  the  Union  cause  has 
brought  a  greatness  and  grandeur  to  the  United  States 
inexpressible  in  language.  Not  only  have  we  a  restored 
Union,  but  a  perfected  Union. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  historians  place  so  little 
emphasis  upon  the  elections  in  Kentucky  which  have 
been  mentioned.  They  were  intensely  significant,  and 
really  meant  everything  at  the  time.  Shaler  does  not 
mention  the  remarkable  vote  for  members  to  the  Border 
State  convention,  which,  as  Hon.  Joseph  Holt  said,  so 
profoundly  impressed  the  whole  country. 

He  mentions  the  election  of  Congressmen  in  June  in 
three  lines  only,  and  he  devotes  only  seven  lines  to  the 
August  election,  simply  mentioning  that  it  occurred  and 
the  result,  but  adds  no  comment  to  point  its  significance 
(p.  247). 

Z.  F.  Smith  briefly  says: 

"They  greatly  deterred  the  leaders  in  sympathy  with 
the  South,  and  correspondingly  encouraged  the  friends 
of  the  Union." 

He  then  adds  the  "if"  already  mentioned,  to  the  effect 
that  the  result  would  have  been  different  if  the  people 
could  have  voted  for  members  of  a  convention  (p.  610). 

Hodge,  writing  in  Collins,  does  not  mention  the  vote 
for  members  of  the  Border  State  convention,  nor  the 


94  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

June  election  for  Congressmen,  but  has  the  following 
singular  remark  about  the  August  election : 

"The  sympathizers  with  the  Confederacy  did  not 
contest  to  any  considerable  extent  the  election  of 
August,  1861.  Consequently,  the  supporters  of  the 
Federal  government  were  largely  in  the  ascendant  in  the 
next  Legislature"  (vol.  i.,  p.  243). 

It  is  remarkable  that  such  a  statement  should  be  made. 
Why  did  they  not  contest?  They  had  candidates  in 
the  field.  The  complaint  of  military  interference  could 
not  be  made,  for  this  was  before  any  soldiers  were  in  the 
State. 

The  same  writer(Hodge)  gives  an  account  of  a  resolution 
he  himself  introduced  in  the  Legislature  the  preceding 
spring,  providing  that  there  should  be  a  vote  of  the  people 
upon  the  question  "Shall  there  be  a  convention? "  and  if 
a  majority  should  vote  in  the  affirmative,  then  a  conven 
tion  should  be  called.  "But,"  says  Hodge,  "this  and 
every  other  effort  for  an  appeal  to  the  people  was  steadily 
resisted ;  the  opponents  of  it  and  kindred  propositions,  de 
nying  the  right  of  the  State  to  secede  from  the  Union  un 
der  any  circumstances. "  So  this  author,  who  was  an  actor 
in  the  affairs  of  that  day,  complains,  in  writing  its  history, 
that  efforts  for  an  appeal  to  the  people  were  resisted,  and 
yet  when  that  appeal  was  made,  complacently  says  his 
people  did  not  contest  the  election,  and  on  that  account 
the  other  side  won.  Why  did  they  not  contest?  This 
was  the  time  of  all  others  to  do  it.  It  was  an  election 
for  members  of  the  State  Legislature.  If  enough  Southern 
sympathizers  should  be  elected  to  control  that  body, 
which  was  to  meet  September  2d,  they  could  then  get  all 
that  was  refused  by  the  Legislature  of  the  past  spring. 
Why  did  they  not  bring  out  that  vast  vote  which  they 
claimed  they  had,  and  thus  get  control  of  the  State? 
Was  it  because  there  was  a  feeling  that  the  vote  for 
Congressmen  in  the  June  previous  had  settled  the 


Elections  in  1861  95 

question?  There  would  be  some  plausibility  in  such  a 
statement.  The  simple  truth  is,  there  was  nothing 
singular,  or  unusual,  or  out  of  the  ordinary,  in  that 
August  election.  For  many  years  it  had  been  the  custom 
of  the  Kentucky  people  to  vote  at  the  "regular  August 
election."  That  was  known  to  be  "election  day."  It 
was  a  day  they  counted  forward  to  and  dated  back  to. 
They  might  be  indifferent  to  some  special  election,  but 
hardly  to  the  "regular  August  election."  Nor  is  there 
anything  but  assertion  in  the  statement  made  by  Hodge 
implying  indifference.  The  regular  vote  of  the  State  was 
polled,  only  it  went  solid  against  the  secessionist  party. 
The  appeal  was  made  to  the  people,  and  the  Union  cause 
won  by  a  great  majority,  and  upon  that  ground  Hodge 
could  truthfully  say,  "consequently,  the  supporters  of 
the  Federal  government  were  largely  in  the  ascendancy 
in  the  next  Legislature." 

The  significance  of  the  vote  in  August,  1861,  deserves 
to  be  especially  emphasized.  The  claim  was  falsely  made 
at  the  time  that  the  vote  was  "in  favor  of  neutrality," 
and  since  the  war  the  statement  has  been  repeated.  In 
October,  1861,  John  C.  Breckinridge  issued  an  address  to 
the  people  of  Kentucky  from  Bowling  Green,  in  which 
he  said : 

"  In  every  form  by  which  you  could  give  direct  expression 
to  your  will,  you  declared  for  neutrality.  A  large  majority  of 
the  people  at  the  June  and  August  elections  voted  for  the 
neutrality  and  peace  of  Kentucky.  The  press,  the  public 
speakers,  the  candidates  (with  the  exception  of  those  in  favor 
of  the  government  at  Washington,  so  rare  as  not  to  need  men 
tion)  planted  themselves  on  this  position.  You  voted  for  it 
and  you  meant  it.  You  were  promised  it  and  you  expected 
it.  The  minority  acquiesced  in  good  faith,  and  at  home  and 
abroad  this  was  recognized  as  the  fixed  position  of  the  State. 
It  was  taken  at  the  beginning  of  hostilities,  and  it  is  but  rea 
sonable  to  infer  that  every  subsequent  act  of  outrage  by  the 


96  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Washington  government  has  confirmed  your  original  purpose. 
Look,  now,  at  the  condition  of  Kentucky,  and  see  how  your 
expectations  have  been  realized — how  these  promises  have 
been  redeemed.  First,  by  the  aid  of  some  citizens  of  the 
State  some  arms  belonging  to  the  whole  people  were  illegally 
and  secretly  introduced  by  order  of  the  President,  and  dis 
tributed  to  one  class  of  our  people  upon  the  false  pretence 
that  they  needed  them  for  protection  against  their  own  fellow- 
citizens.  This  was  the  first  violation. 

Next,  Federal  military  officers  began  to  recruit  soldiers  and 
establish  camps  in  our  midst.  .  .  .  For  a  time  it  was 
denied  that  they  were  Federal  camps,  and  it  was  said  that 
they  were  merely  voluntary  assemblages  of  Kentuckians  for 
their  own  protection  and  that  of  the  State.  These  monstrous 
falsehoods  have  since  been  freely  exposed.  This  was  the 
second  violation." 

Such  expressions  have  found  their  way  into  historic 
writings  since  the  war,  to  give  the  impression  that  the 
Kentucky  people  did  not  vote  for  the  Union,  but  for 
neutrality,  and  that  thereupon  the  Lincoln  government, 
through  the  treachery  of  the  Union  leaders,  seized  the 
State  and  held  it  in  the  Union  against  the  will  of  the 
people. 

Shaler  in  his  history  gives  out  this  idea.  In  his  brief 
allusion  to  the  August  election  he  says:  "The  regular 
election  on  the  first  Monday  in  August  gave  the  first 
distinct  impression  of  the  will  of  the  neutrality  party"; 
and  adds:  "the  neutrality  party  had  now  obtained  full 
control  of  the  State  Legislature"  (p.  247). 

The  complete  answer  to  such  misrepresentation  is  found 
in  the  great  outstanding  facts  of  the  time.  The  legislators 
who  were  elected  could  not  have  differed  wholly  and 
altogether  from  their  constituents,  and  three  weeks  after 
their  election  they  convened,  and  controlled  the  State 
absolutely  for  the  Union.  They  passed  laws  for  the 
vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war,  and  for  large  appropria- 


Elections  in  1861  97 

tions  therefor,  and  for  the  expulsion  of  the  Confederate 
armies  from  the  State,  even  passing  them  over  Governor 
Magoffin's  vetoes. 

Again,  let  it  be  noted  that  when  Confederate  General 
Polk  came  into  Kentucky  in  September  he  justified  his 
movement  on  the  ground,  among  others,  that  the  people 
of  Kentucky  had  violated  neutrality  by  their  representa 
tives  in  Congress  voting  men  and  money  to  carry  on  the 
war  against  the  South.  His  language  was: 

"She  has  by  her  members  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  voted  supplies  of  men  and  money  to  carry 
on  the  war  against  the  Confederate  States." 

Now,  if  General  Polk  knew  what  the  Kentucky  Con 
gressmen,  who  were  elected  in  June,  1861,  were  doing, 
shall  it  be  said  that  the  people  of  Kentucky  did  not  know? 
Yet,  when  the  election  came  on  in  August  they,  instead 
of  rebuking  their  representatives,  elected  a  State  Legisla 
ture  composed  of  men  precisely  like  those  representatives 
in  Congress,  which  Legislature  ordered  General  Polk  to 
retire  from  the  State. 

Those  representatives  in  Congress  were  elected  by 
Kentucky  Unionists,  not  by  men  whose  allegiance  might 
fall  either  way.  Those  representatives  knew  that  neu 
trality  was  for  the  purpose  of  mediation  and  possible 
peace,  but  never  looked  to  abandonment  of  the  Union  or 
drifting  into  the  Confederacy.  Therefore,  it  is  perfectly 
natural  that  in  the  records  we  find  manifestations  of  this 
well  understood  sentiment.  On  the  2Qth  of  July,  1861, 
these  records  show  that  President  Lincoln  desired  that 
Jesse  Bayles  should  raise  a  regiment  in  Kentucky,  and 
that  consent  was  given  by  representatives  in  Congress, 
Mallory,  Grider,  Dunlap,  J.  S.  Jackson,  and  Charles  A. 
Wickliffe  (War  Records,  Serial  No.  122,  p.  364). 

Also,  in  a  speech  in  Congress,  the  most  distinguished 
one  of  these  representatives — Hon.  Charles  A.  Wick 
liffe — said  on  the  subject  of  raising  means  to  carry  on 

7 


98  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

the  war :  "I  want  the  whole  resources  of  the  government 
resorted  to,  as  was  the  case  in  the  war  of  1812  ";  and  in 
the  course  of  his  speech  said:  "I  have  never  sought  to 
distract  and  divide  the  Union.  I  have  never  sympathized 
with  a  rebellion  against  the  glory  and  honor  and  even 
the  existence  of  my  beloved  country"  (Congressional 
Globe], 

Furthermore,  one  of  the  great  outstanding  facts  of  the 
period  was  that  the  constituents  of  the  Union  delegation 
in  Congress,  and  the  Union  Legislature,  responded  to  the 
call  for  troops  with  a  zeal  which  is  described  as  having 
" sprung  to  the  country's  defence." 

If  the  vote  had  been  for  neutrality,  as  stated  by  Breck- 
inridge,  his  address  to  the  Kentucky  people  might  have 
fallen  upon  ears  less  deaf  to  his  portrayal  of  the 
"usurpations,"  and  "despotisms,"  and  "atrocious 
doctrines,"  and  "insincerity,"  and  "  falsehoods,"  and 
"betrayals,"  and  "hirelings,"  and  "outrages"  of  the 
Federal  government  and  all  that  pertained  to  it. 

It  may  be  further  said  that  as  the  people  of  Kentucky 
in  1860  manifested  their  preference  for  the  Union  over 
the  clamor  for  Southern  Rights,  so  when  they  came  to 
vote  in  1861  there  was  no  change,  but  only  a  more 
decided  stand  and  firmer  determination  not  to  yield  to 
any  of  the  seductions  looking  to  the  dismemberment  of 
the  Union. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE   "LINCOLN     GUNS " 

THE  details  of  a  very  interesting  episode  m  the 
beginning  of  the  war,  known  as  the  bringing  of 
the  "  Lincoln  guns  "  into  Kentucky,  are  not  given  in  any 
history.  They  were  made  known  to  the  present  writer 
by  some  of  the  participants,  all  of  whom  are  now  dead. 
Fortunately  for  history,  an  account  was  carefully  written 
and  published  in  the  Magazine  of  American  History  by 
Rev.  Daniel  Stevenson.  Dr.  Stevenson  had  personal 
acquaintance  with  many  of  the  men  who  were  instru 
mental  in  obtaining  these  guns,  and  his  information  was 
derived  from  them. 

President  Lincoln  was  watching  the  state  of  affairs  in 
Kentucky  with  intense  solicitude,  and  was  kept  advised 
of  every  step  taken,  principally  through  his  personal 
friend,  Joshua  F.  Speed  of  Louisville.  He  knew  of  the 
existence  of  the  armed  and  equipped  State  Guard,  and 
he  knew  that  while  the  Unionists  in  the  State  largely  pre 
dominated,  yet  they  were  unorganized  and  had  no  arms. 
There  was  perplexity  in  the  question  as  to  what  was  to 
be  done,  and  before  any  solution  was  offered,  the  man 
for  the  times  came  voluntarily  upon  the  scene.  This  was 
Lieutenant  William  Nelson,  a  Kentuckian  who  had  been 
upon  a  visit  to  his  native  State,  and  had  learned  the 
nature  of  the  situation.  It  was  early  in  May,  1861, 
when  he  called  to  see  the  President  and  laid  before  him 
his  plan  for  furnishing  arms  to  the  Kentucky  Unionists. 
The  President  approved  his  plan  and  agreed  to  furnish 

99 


ioo  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

him  five  thousand  muskets  to  be  distributed  by  him  in 
Kentucky.  The  guns  were  shipped  from  Washington  to 
Cincinnati,  to  which  place  Nelson  proceeded  and  for 
warded  some  of  the  arms  to  Jeffersonville,  Indiana, 
opposite  Louisville.  From  Cincinnati  Nelson  went  to 
Louisville  and  had  a  private  interview  with  Mr.  Speed. 
A  correct  account  is  given  by  Dr.  Stevenson : 

"Mr.  Speed  was  sitting  at  his  table  with  some  papers  before 
him  when  a  large  man  entered,  who,  after  glancing  around 
the  room,  apparently  to  see  if  there  was  more  than  one  person 
present,  asked  if  he  were  Mr.  Speed.  On  being  told  that  he 
was,  he  asked  if  he  were  Joshua  Speed. 

"  'That  is  my  name'  was  the  response. 

"'Is  there  another  room  to  this  office?'  was  the  next 
question. 

'"There  is.' 

"  'Is  there  any  one  in  that  room? ' 

"  'There  is  not.' 

"  'I  should  like,  Mr.  Speed,  to  see  you  in  that  room  for  a 
short  time.' 

"Mr.  Speed  rose  and  led  the  way,  when  the  stranger  turned 
and  locked  the  door  behind  him." 

When  seated,  Nelson  made  himself  known  and  stated 
the  object  of  his  visit.  He  desired  Mr.  Speed  to  go  to 
Frankfort  with  him  to  consult  with  prominent  Union 
men  there.  They  went  that  afternoon.  On  the  same 
train  went  also  Mr.  Speed's  brother,  Hon.  James  Speed. 
That  night  a  consultation  was  held  at  the  office  of  Hon. 
James  Harlan,  who  was  the  father  of  Justice  John  M. 
Harlan  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  There 
were  present  James  Harlan,  John  J.  Crittenden,  Charles 
A.  Wickliffe,  Garrett  Davis,  Thornton  F.  Marshall,  James 
Speed,  Joshua  F.  Speed,  and  Lieutenant  Nelson. 

It  was  felt  by  all  that  the  utmost  caution  was  necessary, 
as  mismanagement  might  cause  the  guns  to  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  other  party,  and  it  was  agreed  that  orders 


The  "  Lincoln  Guns  "  101 

for  the  guns  were  to  be  given  by  men  in  different  localities 
in  the  State  to  be  countersigned  by  Joshua  F.  Speed. 
Twelve  hundred  guns  were  assigned  to  Louisville.  They 
were  brought  to  Louisville,  stored  in  the  court-house, 
and,  under  the  direction  of  Major  John  W.  Barr,  were 
issued  to  the  Louisville  Home  Guards.  Some  of  the  guns 
from  Jeffersonville  were  sent  to  Shelby ville  for  the 
Home  Guard  company  at  that  place,  commanded  by  Dr. 
William  Bailey.1  Enough  were  also  sent  to  Hopkinsville 
to  arm  one  company  in  the  regiment  raised  there  by 
Colonel  James  F.  Buckner.  In  other  places  Home 
Guard  companies  were  formed  as  soon  as  they  found  that 
they  could  be  armed.  The  following  extracts  from 
the  account  prepared  by  Dr.  Stevenson  show  how  the 
Lincoln  guns  were  distributed  in  other  sections  of  the 
State: 

"The  guns  for  the  counties  of  Bourbon,  Fayette,  Clark, 
and  Montgomery  were  sent  up  by  the  Kentucky  Central  Rail 
road.  The  shipment  of  these  guns  took  place  on  the  iyth  of 
May.  Mr.  John  D.  Hearne,  at  that  time  of  Paris,  now  of  Cov- 
ington,  took  an  active  part  in  the  work.  He  says  that  all  was 
kept  profoundly  secret  till  the  departure  of  the  afternoon  train 
on  the  Kentucky  Central  Railroad,  when  a  man  designated 
for  the  purpose  was  stationed  in  the  telegraph  office  at  Coving- 
ton,  to  prevent  any  information  being  sent  on  the  wires. 
Trains  of  wagons  were  hastily  loaded  in  Cincinnati  with  the 
guns  and  sent  across  the  river  to  the  Kentucky  Central  depot 
in  Covington,  where  cars  were  speedily  placed  in  a  position  to 
receive  the  arms. 

1  '  Cincinnati  had  at  that  time '  says  Mr.  Hearne,  *a  large 
volunteer  patrol,  a  kind  of  home  guard,  whose  self-imposed 
duty,  among  others,  was  to  prevent  any  contraband  articles 
from  going  into  Kentucky,  without  special  permission  from 
some  self-appointed  committee  who  heard  and  passed  upon  all 
applications,  and  whose  determination  was  final.  Squarely 

1  See  Appendix,  \  9,  p.  344. 


102  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

up  against  this  patrol  came  Lieutenant  Nelson  and  the  first 
wagon  in  the  line  loaded  with  muskets  and  ammunition.  As 
they  approached  the  ferry  and  were  notified  what  credentials 
were  necessary  before  'being  permitted  to  pass,  Nelson  de 
manded  from  whence  came  the  authority  to  stop  him,  an 
officer  of  the  United  States  government,  and  with  language 
more  forcible  than  elegant  informed  Mr.  Patrol  that  if  another 
of  his  teams  were  stopped,  he  would  have  the  person  who 
stopped  it  sent  to  a  military  prison.  I  need  scarcely  say  that 
no  more  wagons  were  stopped.  The  train  was  loaded  and  left 
the  depot  at  n  o'clock  that  night,  and  before  daylight  the 
next  morning  the  guns  for  Bourbon,  Clark,  and  Montgomery 
counties  were  landed  at  Paris  and  those  for  Fayette  county  at 
Lexington.' 

"  These  last  were  directed  to  the  care  of  Mr.  Hiram  Shaw, 
Sr.,  whose  loyalty  and  decision  of  character  made  him  con 
spicuous  among  the  Union  men  in  that  part  of  the  State. 
The  guns  for  Clark  and  Montgomery  counties  had  to  be 
hauled  from  Paris  to  Winchester  and  Mt.  Sterling,  the  county- 
seats  respectively  of  those  counties,  in  wagons;  Winchester 
being  about  sixteen  miles  distant  and  Mt.  Sterling  about 
twenty.  The  men  who  took  the  guns  from  Paris  to  Mt.  Ster 
ling  were  intercepted  by  spies,  but,  showing  a  determined 
purpose,  no  attack  was  made  upon  them.  Before  sunset  of 
that  day  the  guns  for  these  four  counties,  all  in  the  heart  of 
the  Blue  Grass  portion  of  the  State,  were  in  the  hands  of  men 
pledged  to  use  them  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Union  and 
whom  it  would  have  been  hazardous  to  provoke  to  a  trial  of 
their  ability  to  use  them. 

"  On  the  day  on  which  the  guns  for  the  counties  just  named 
were  shipped  by  cars  from  Covington,  others  were  shipped  by 
boat  directly  from  Cincinnati,  up  the  Ohio  River.  The  latter 
were  tor  the  counties  of  Mason  and  Nicholas.  The  boat  con 
taining  them  reached  its  destination,  Maysville,  the  county- 
seat  of  Mason  County,  early  in  the  night,  while  the  train 
bearing  the  others  was  making  its  way  along  the  track  that  fol 
lows  the  tortuous  course  of  the  Licking  River.  The  next  morn 
ing,  while  the  Union  men  of  Lexington  and  Paris  were  unbox- 


The  "  Lincoln  Guns  "  103 

ing  the  guns  sent  to  them,  and  the  men  from  Winchester  and 
Mt.  Sterling  were  loading  wagons  with  theirs,  the  men  of  Mays- 
ville  were  rejoicing  in  the  possession  of  a  similar  treasure.  The 
Hon.  William  H.  Wadsworth  was  the  commander  of  the  Home 
Guards  of  Maysville.  The  guns  intended  for  Nicholas  County 
were  in  charge  of  Colonel  Leonidas  Metcalfe,  a  citizen  of  that 
county,  and  a  son  of  a  former  Governor  of  Kentucky  and 
Senator  of  the  United  States. 

"  The  news  of  the  arrival  of  the  guns  at  Paris  and  Lexington 
and  Maysville,  all  three  prominent  places,  spread  like  wild 
fire.  About  the  time  when  Colonel  Metcalfe  was  well  on  his 
way,  by  turnpike,  with  the  arms  for  Nicholas  County,  a  meet 
ing  of  disunionists  and  neutrality  men  was  called  at  Carlisle, 
the  county-seat  of  that  county,  at  which  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  go  down  the  turnpike,  in  the  direction  of  Mays 
ville,  and  meet  Colonel  Metcalfe,  and  protest  that  the  intro 
duction  of  the  guns  could  only  result  in  an  immediate  and 
sanguinary  conflict.  This  committee  met  the  Colonel  with 
the  wagon  containing  the  guns  a  little  north  of  the  Blue  Licks 
Springs,  and  delivered  their  message,  which  was,  in  the  most 
unequivocal  terms,  that  the  guns  must  not  be  brought  to  Car 
lisle,  and  that  seventy-five  men  were  banded  together  to  come 
to  the  turnpike  bridge  at  the  Blue  Licks,  and  prevent  them 
from  being  taken  beyond  it.  Colonel  Metcalfe  had  with  him, 
besides  the  driver,  only  two  other  men,  citizens  of  his  county; 
but  he  was  fearless  and  determined,  and  he  said,  in  response 
to  the  bearers  of  the  message,  in  language  made  emphatic  by 
an  oath,  that  they  might  go  back  and  tell  the  men  who  had 
sent  them,  that  seventy-five  of  them  might  come  to  the  bridge, 
but  that  seventy-five  would  never  go  back  to  Carlisle;  and  with 
that  he  told  his  driver  to  drive  on.  Nobody  met  him  at  the 
bridge,  and  that  night  the  guns  were  received  by  men  awaiting 
the  Colonel's  arrival,  at  his  residence,  on  the  turnpike,  about 
two  miles  from  Carlisle  in  whose  hands  he  knew  they  would 
do  no  harm  to  the  government. 

"  The  number  of  guns  received  at  this  time  into  the  State 
was  believed  by  disunionists  to  be  much  larger  than  it  really 
was.  A  prominent  Southern  sympathizer,  writing  at  the  time 


104  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

to  another  prominent  Southern  sympathizer,  estimated  the 
number  that  was  landed  at  Maysville  at  two  thousand  five 
hundred,  the  number  that  was  sent  up  into  the  Blue  Grass 
section  at  five  thousand,  and  the  whole  number  that  had  been 
received  at  Cincinnati  for  distribution  in  Kentucky  at  fifteen 
thousand.  Each  gun  was  thus  made  to  have  the  moral  effect 
of  three  or  four. 


"Efforts  had  been  made  by  General  Speed  S.  Fry,  at  that 
time  Captain  Fry,  of  Danville,  the  county-seat  of  Boyle 
County  in  the  centre  of  the  State,  to  procure  arms  for  a 
Home  Guard  company  of  that  place,  from  General  Simon 
Bolivar  Buckner,  commander  of  the  State  Guard,  but  in  vain. 
Hearing  that  Lieutenant  Nelson  had  guns  for  distribution  to 
such  companies,  General  Fry,  in  company  with  Wellington  Har- 
lan,  William  Goodloe,  and  Stephen  G.  Cloyd,  of  Boyle  County, 
and  Dr.  Stephen  Burdett  and  Osburn  Dunn,  of  Garrard,  an 
adjoining  county,  went  to  Cincinnati  with  the  hope  of  procur 
ing  guns  for  companies  in  Jessamine,  Garrard,  Mercer,  Lin 
coln,  and  Boyle  counties.  On  reaching  Cincinnati  they  found 
the  city  in  a  state  of  intense  excitement,  business  of  all  kinds 
seemingly  suspended,  and  the  war  the  only  subject  of  conver 
sation.  They  found  Lieutenant  Nelson  in  a  cheerful  and 
affable  state  of  mind;  and  when  the  object  of  their  mission 
was  made  known,  a  prompt  affirmative  response  was  given  by 
him  to  their  requests.  He  informed  them,  however,  that  the 
excitement  in  Cincinnati  had  become  so  intense,  when  it  had 
become  known  that  he  had  arms  in  his  possession  for  distri 
bution  among  the  Home  Guards  of  Kentucky,  that  he  had 
been  compelled  to  ship  all  the  arms  consigned  to  him  to  the 
care  of  Mr.  Hamilton  Gray  of  the  city  of  Maysville.  This 
excitement  had  arisen  in  consequence  of  the  idea  that  Ken 
tucky  loyalty  was  of  so  doubtful  a  type  as  to  render  it  danger 
ous  to  the  interests,  not  only  of  Cincinnati,  but  also  of  the 
government,  to  entrust  guns  to  the  hands  of  citizens  of 
Kentucky. 

"He  at  once  gave  General  Fry  an  order  on  Mr.  Gray  for 


The  " Lincoln  Guns"  105 

seven  hundred  guns;  and  the  general  and  his  companions, 
without  delay,  proceeded  by  boat  to  Maysville.  On  present 
ing  their  order  there  they  were  informed  that  it  would  be  filled 
as  soon  as  conveyance  for  the  guns  could  be  obtained,  as  it 
was  deemed  best  to  take  them  by  the  way  of  the  Maysville 
and  Lexington  turnpike,  although  the  route  lay  through  cer 
tain  sections  where  Southern  sympathizers  predominated. 
The  distance  from  Maysville  to  Danville  by  this  way  is  about 
ninety  miles.  They  procured  two  wagons,  one  drawn  by  six 
horses  and  the  other  by  two.  It  was  late  in  the  day  before  the 
loading  was  completed,  and  the  sun  had  set  by  the  time  they 
reached  the  top  of  the  hill  just  in  the  rear  of  the  city. 
There  they  encamped  for  the  night,  and  made  a  very  early 
start  the  next  morning. 

"  Before  starting,  having  apprehension  that  they  might  en 
counter  some  trouble  on  the  way,  they  took  the  precaution  to 
load  six  of  the  guns  with  buck  and  ball,  and  to  lay  them  in 
the  box  hung  in  the  rear  of  the  larger  wagon.  They  expected 
to  get  their  breakfast  at  some  convenient  point  on  the  way. 
In  the  course  of  an  hour  they  passed  the  house  of  a  good 
Union  man,  and  an  old  acquaintance  of  General  Fry,  who 
compelled  the  General  to  come  in  and  take  breakfast  with 
him.  After  breakfast  this  gentleman  brought  out  his  buggy 
and  took  the  General  on  in  it  till  they  overtook  the  other  men, 
who  had  gone  ahead  with  the  wagons.  The  rest  took  breakfast 
at  Mayslick,  twelve  miles  from  Maysville.  'As  all  our  move 
ments,'  says  the  commander  of  this  little  force,  'had  been  of 
a  public  character — the  loading  of  the  guns  upon  the  wagons, 
and  our  departure  with  them  from  Maysville, — there  were 
doubtless  those  who  were  watching  us  with  a  view  of  bearing 
intelligence  of  our  coming  to  different  points  on  the  road;  for 
as  we  entered  the  little  town  of  Mayslick  we  found  the  streets 
thronged  with  men  and  boys,  the  larger  mass  of  whom  had 
come  from  their  homes  in  the  country  to  witness  the  passing 
of  the  approaching  little  army  with  its  munitions  of  war;  and 
doubtless  also  to  join  in  any  attempt  that  might  be  made  to 
take  the  guns  from  us.  It  was  very  evident  that  nearly  all 
this  assemblage,  judging  from  the  frowning  aspect  depicted 


io6  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

in  their  countenances,  were  of  the  extreme  Southern  type  in 
sympathy  and  sentiment.* 

'Just  before  entering  the  town,  being  myself,'  says  the 
General,  '  in  front,  and  walking  alone  behind  the  larger  wagon, 
a  gentleman  came  to  the  front  door  of  his  dwelling,  which  he 
opened  only  sufficiently  wide  (he  was  doubtless  a  Union  man) 
to  exhibit  his  head,  waved  his  hand  to  me  to  stop,  and  then, 
in  a  tone  barely  loud  enough  for  me  to  hear  him,  said,  "Do 
not  go  into  the  town  with  those  guns,"  and  then  suddenly 
disappeared.  I  halted  the  larger  wagon.  The  other  portion 
of  my  company  had  betaken  themseves  to  the  top  of  the  smaller 
wagon  to  give  rest  to  their  weary  limbs.  When  they  came  up 
I  notified  them  of  what  had  just  happened,  and  a  council  of 
war  was  held,  which,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  smaller 
arms  we  had  upon  our  persons,  resulted  in  a  decision  to  move 
forward.  We  marched  into  the  town,  halted  opposite  the 
door  of  the  only  hotel  in  the  place,  and  there  our  wagons  stood 
while  the  other  members  of  the  party  went  into  the  hotel  and 
ate  their  breakfasts,  I  remaining  as  the  only  sentinel  to  watch 
the  movements  of  the  crowd  who  gathered  around,  and  to 
guard  the  guns. 

1  c  I  took  my  stand  immediately  in  the  rear  of  the  larger  wag 
on,  with  my  hand  upon  the  box  containing  the  six  loaded  guns; 
and  whilst  standing  thus  alone  one  of  the  crowd  walked  up  to 
my  side,  and  in  rather  an  insolent  tone  asked,  if  "  they  hadn't 
better  take  some  of  those  guns?  "  to  which  I  coolly  but  firmly 
responded,  "There  they  are;  take  them."  Whether  it  was  the 
coolness  of  my  response  or  the  fear  of  danger  that  might  be 
lurking  near,  I  could  not  tell,  but  something  induced  him  to 
turn  away  without  offering  any  other  remark.  My  comrades 
in  a  very  short  time  came  out,  when,  bidding  the  crowd  good- 
morning,  we  quietly  moved  off,  thankful  that  nothing  had 
occurred  to  impede  our  progress.' 

"  Nothing  of  interest  occurred  after  this  lill  they  reached 
Millersburg,  in  Bourbon  County,  about  thirty-six  miles  from 
Maysville.  Knowing  that  the  sentiments  of  the  people  of  this 
place  were  almost  entirely  Southern,  they  deemed  it  necessary 
to  keep  their  forces  in  close  order,  watching  with  eager  eyes 


The  " Lincoln  Guns"  107 

the  crowd  that  appeared  on  the  street,  evidently  brought  to. 
gether  by  the  news  of  their  coming,  which  had  preceded  them. 

"  The  driver  of  the  large  wagon,  whom  they  had  suspected 
of  being  a  Southern  sympathizer,  had  been  told,  after  leaving 
Mayslick,  not  to  stop  in  any  town.  'But  in  spite  of  our  posi 
tive  orders,'  says  the  General,  'he  pretended  to  have  some 
important  business  at  Millersburg,  stopped  his  team  right  in 
the  centre  of  the  town,  dismounted,  and  ran  immediately  into 
some  house.  Not  knowing  what  information  he  might  com 
municate  to  persons  he  came  in  contact  with,  and  wishing 
to  get  as  far  on  our  journey  as  possible  before  nightfall,  Dr. 
Burdett,  one  of  our  company,  at  once  mounted  the  saddle- 
horse,  drove  the  wagon  through  the  town,  leaving  the  driver 
to  overtake  us  as  best  he  could.  Our  order  was  again  repeated 
to  him,  and  his  pledge  was  given  that  he  would  not  stop  again. 
As  luck  would  have  it,  the  only  thing  that  occurred  that  had 
even  the  semblance  of  any  hostile  demonstration  (and  that 
was  simply  amusing  and  ridiculous,  except  for  the  effect  that  it 
might  have  had  upon  some  of  the  crowd)  was  the  act  of  an 
old  lady  who  sat  in  a  door  on  the  street.  Raising  her 
clenched  fist,  she  shook  it  at  us  with  some  degree  of  violence, 
and  exclaimed  at  the  top  of  her  voice,  "  If  I  was  a  man  I 
would  not  let  them  guns  pass  without  taking  them." 

"They  expected  to  reach  Paris,  eight  miles  beyond  Millers- 
burg,  that  night;  but  when  they  had  gone  not  quite  half  the 
distance,  a  messenger,  sent  by  the  direction  of  Lieutenant 
Nelson,  met  them  and  informed  them  that  a  rebel  company 
had  been  parading  the  streets  of  Paris  that  day  creating  con 
siderable  excitement  among  the  citizens,  and  warned  them 
that  there  was  danger  if  they  went  into  town  that  night,  that 
an  effort  might  be  made  by  the  rebel  company  to  seize  their 
guns.  The  result  of  this  warning  was  a  determination  to  go 
into  camp  for  the  night.  They  halted  near  the  residence  of 
Mrs.  Hezekiah  Martin,  a  widow  lady  of  decided  Union  senti 
ments,  who  kindly  provided  supper  and  breakfast  for  them, 
and  furnished  them  with  bedding  to  spread  on  the  roadside 
near  their  wagons,  where  they  deemed  it  best,  for  the  safety  of 
their  guns,  to  sleep. 


io8  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

"  Early  the  next  morning,  they  took  up  their  line  of  march. 
On  entering  Paris  they  found  the  streets  perfectly  quiet.  On 
stepping  for  a  moment  into  the  grocery  store  of  Mr.  H.  T. 
Brent,  through  whom  the  warning  had  been  sent  out  the  day 
before,  General  Fry  saw  a  number  of  guns  standing  against 
the  wall;  and  was  told,  in  response  to  his  inquiry  what  their 
presence  meant,  that  they  had  been  placed  there  that  they 
might  be  ready  for  use  by  the  Union  men  of  the  town  in  the 
event  of  any  hostile  demonstrations  on  the  part  of  the  rebels 
against  him  and  his  comrades  in  their  passage  through  the 
place. 

"  'Here  again,'  says  the  General,  'just  as  we  reached  the 
centre  and  chief  business  part  of  the  town,  our  rebel  teamster 
halted  his  team,  dismounted,  rushed  into  a  house,  pretendedly 
to  see  some  one  on  business.  Being  now  fully  convinced  that 
his  persistent  disobedience  of  our  positive  orders  was  intended 
to  involve  us  in  some  difficulty,  we  determined  that  his  folly 
and  perversity  should  not  delay  the  progress  of  our  march;  so 
that  as  soon  as  he  dismounted  I  mounted  into  the  saddle  and 
drove  the  team  through  the  town  and  some  distance  beyond.' 

"  They  felt  some  apprehension  in  approaching  Lexington; 
but  they  passed  through  the  city  without  seeming  to  attract 
any  special  attention.  They  encamped  that  night  four  miles 
beyond  Lexington,  on  the  farm  of  a  Mr.  Dunn,  who,  though  a 
rebel  sympathizer,  entertained  them  very  hospitably  at  his 
house. 

"On  reaching  Nicholasville,  the  county-seat  of  Jessamine 
County,  twelve  miles  beyond  Lexington,  the  next  day,  they 
found  a  company  of  Home  Guards  ready  to  welcome  them 
and  relieve  them  of  a  portion  of  their  guns.  They  were 
heartily  congratulated  on  their  success,  and  were  then  invited 
to  a  rich  and  bountiful  repast. 

"  Proceeding  on  their  way,  they  were  met  at  Mr.  Richard 
Robinson's,  where  the  road  forks — one  prong  leading  to  Dan 
ville  and  the  other  to  Lancaster — by  a  part  of  the  Home 
Guard  company  of  Garrard  County,  who,  after  having  received 
the  portion  of  the  guns  designed  for  their  county,  bade  the 
General  and  his  comrades  adieu,  and  with  shouts  of  gladness 


The  "  Lincoln  Guns  "  109 

and  triumph  hastened  away  in  the  direction  of  Lancaster,  to 
rejoice  the  hearts  of  the  other  members  of  their  company. 

"  With  the  remainder  of  their  charge  the  General  and  his 
faithful  companions  turned  to  the  right  and  proceeded  on 
their  way  towards  Danville.  They  reached  there  at  a  late 
hour  in  the  night,  when  the  people  generally  were  wrapped  in 
sleep.  A  few  friends,  however,  were  waiting  and  watching  for 
their  coming.  With  as  little  noise  as  possible  the  guns  were 
removed  from  the  wagons  and  deposited  under  lock  and  key 
in  the  house  of  one  of  the  members  of  the  Home  Guard 
company. 

"  No  suspicion  of  the  visit  of  General  Fry,  and  the  little 
band  of  men  that  had  accompanied  him,  to  Cincinnati,  for  the 
purpose  of  procuring  guns,  had  reached  the  rebel  part  of  the 
community,  'and  it  would  be  impossible,'  says  the  General, 
'for  any  one  to  describe,  in  language  sufficiently  strong,  the 
consternation  expressed  in  the  countenances  of  these  people, 
when  they  beheld  my  company  of  a  hundred  men  file  down 
Main  street,  with  bayonets  glistening  in  the  sunlight,  pointed 
above  their  heads,  and  nodding  to  and  fro  as  they  "  kept  step 
to  the  music  of  the  Union.'  ' 

"  The  companies  from  Mercer  and  Lincoln  counties  hastened 
to  Danville  as  soon  as  they  received  information  of  the  arrival 
of  the  guns  at  that  place,  and  received  their  distributive  share 
of  the  coveted  prize. 

"The  first  issue  of  guns  to  Lieutenant  Nelson  being  ex 
hausted,  on  the  fifth  of  June  five  thousand  more  guns  were 
issued  and  the  distribution  went  on.  In  proportion  to  the 
increase  of  Home  Guards,  with  these  arms  in  their  hands,  the 
courage  and  the  hopes  of  the  Unionists  rose,  and  those  of 
the  disunionists  fell.  The  disunionists,  in  a  spirit  of  hatred  and 
scorn,  spoke  of  the  guns  as  '  Lincoln  guns.'  The  men  who 
carried  the  guns  on  their  shoulders  accepted  the  title  thus 
given  to  them  with  a  smile  of  confidence  which  was  full  of 
meaning.  These  guns,  notwithstanding  all  the  hatred  with 
which  they  and  the  bearers  of  them  were  regarded  by  the  ene 
mies  of  the  government,  had  a  wonderfully  quieting  effect  in 
the  communities  into  which  they  were  introduced,  and,  doubt- 


no  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

less,  were  the  means  of  preventing  disturbances,  and  perhaps 
scenes  of  bloodshed.  Under  their  influence,  moreover,  the 
Unionists  began  to  hope  for  an  early  end  of  neutrality. 

"  The  President,  fully  aware  of  the  difficulties  under  which 
the  friends  of  the  government  in  Kentucky  labored,  had 
avoided  doing  anything  which  might  have  the  appearance  of 
bringing  any  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  State  from  without. 
Colonels  Guthrie  and  Woodruff,  Kentuckians,  desirous  of 
aiding  the  government,  had  gone  across  the  Ohio  River  and 
opened  a  recruiting  station  in  Ohio  for  such  Kentuckians  as 
wished  to  enlist  in  the  service  of  the  United  States;  and  about 
the  time  of  Lieutenant  Nelson's  first  appearance  in  Kentucky 
for  the  purpose  of  distributing  guns,  Major  Anderson,  of  Fort 
Sumter  fame,  himself  a  Kentuckian,  was  commissioned  to 
open  a  recruiting  office  in  Cincinnati  for  volunteers  from  Ken 
tucky  and  West  Virginia.  Many  Union  men  of  the  State  were 
thus  seeking  service  under  the  flag  of  the  United  States  outside 
of  the  boundaries  of  the  State.  But,  stimulated  by  the  manifest 
purposes  of  the  enemies  of  the  government  on  one  hand,  and 
by  the  rising  tide  of  Union  sentiment  in  the  North,  and  the 
presence  of  the  'Lincoln  guns'  in  the  hands  of  the  Home 
Guards  of  the  State  on  the  other  hand,  the  Unionists  of  Ken 
tucky  were  becoming  more  and  more  outspoken  in  favor  of 
placing  the  State  in  active  co-operation  with  the  loyal  States 
of  the  North  in  the  maintenance  of  the  integrity  of  the  Union. 

"  From  the  time  of  the  first  important  meeting  in  Frankfort, in 
May,  prominent  Union  men  of  the  State  had  been  in  frequent 
consultation  with  one  another  and  with  General  Nelson  in 
regard  to  the  position  of  the  State;  and  the  thoughts  and  feel 
ings  of  the  Union  people  of  Kentucky  were,  through  them, 
gradually  but  surely  giving  direction  to  the  policy  of  the  State; 
and  that  policy  was  becoming  less  and  less  uncertain  every  day. 

"  Some  of  the  men  most  prominent  in  these  meetings  were, 
in  addition  to  those  already  mentioned,  General  Jerry  T. 
Boyle,  Hon.  Joshua  F.  Bell,  Hon.  Tucker  Woodson,  and 
General  John  W.  Finnell.  Meetings  were  held  in  Louisville, 
Frankfort,  Lexington,  Jessamine  County,  and  probably  in 
other  places. 


The  "  Lincoln  Guns  "  1 1 1 

"On  the  fifteenth  of  July  General  Nelson  visited  Lancaster, 
where  he  had  a  conference  with  several  gentlemen  who  were 
known  to  be  earnest,  active  friends  of  the  government,  in 
regard  to  the  proposed  enlistments.  It  was  agreed  that  the 
most  suitable  place  for  the  establishment  of  a  camp  for  gath 
ering  recruits  was  Mr.  Richard  Robinson's  farm,  at  the  forks 
of  the  road  leading  from  Lexington  to  Danville  and  Lancaster, 
and  it  was  decided  that  that  should  be  the  place  for  the  camp, 
and  that  the  troops  should  begin  to  assemble  there  immediately 
after  the  August  election.  At  this  meeting  in  Lancaster, 
General  Nelson  commissioned  William  J.  Landrum,  Thomas 
E.  Bramlette,  Speed  S.  Fry,  and  T.  T.  Garrard  as  Colonels, 
and  Frank  Woolford  as  Lieutenant-Colonel,  of  volunteers  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States.  Recruiting  must  have 
already  begun  in  anticipation  of  the  commissioning  of  these 
gentlemen,  as  General  Nelson  reported  the  next  day  from 
Cincinnati  to  the  War  Department  that  Kentucky  recruits 
were  then  arriving  at  the  place  or  places  appointed  for 
rendezvous. 

"On  the  twenty-first  of  July  the  battle  of  Bull  Run  was 
fought.  On  that  day  a  meeting  of  leading  Union  men  was 
held  at  Lexington  with  General  Nelson.  Among  those  present 
were  the  Hon.  James  Speed,  Mr.  Joshua  F.  Speed,  Hon.  Garret 
Davis,  Hon.  James  Harlan,  General  Jerry  T.  Boyle,  and  Col 
onel  T.  T.  Garrard.  When  the  news  of  the  reverse  to  the 
Union  forces  arrived,  the  enemies  of  the  government  through 
out  the  State  became  exultant  and  did  not  hesitate  to  make 
their  feelings  manifest  in  the  most  open  and  noisy  way.  On 
the  return  of  Mr.  James  Speed  and  Mr.  Joshua  F.  Speed  to 
Louisville,  they  found  the  city  wild  with  excitement.  The 
feelings  of  the  secessionists,  which  had  been  somewhat 
restrained  by  the  presence  in  the  city  of  the  guns  in  the  hands 
of  the  Home  Guards,  now  broke  out  afresh  in  the  display  of 
secession  flags  and  in  shoutings  for  Jefferson  Davis.  Seces 
sion  flags  were  seen  flying  from  buggies  and  carriages,  as 
these  vehicles  were  driven  through  the  streets. 

"  Hon.  James  Speed  was  the  commander  of  the  Home  Guard 
of  Louisville,  and  soon  after  his  arrival  from  Lexington,  he 


i i 2  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

received  a  message  from  Mr.  John  M.  Delph,  the  Mayor,  who 
was  as  true  and  brave  as  he  was  loyal,  requesting  him  to  come 
to  the  Mayor's  office.  Mr.  Speed  at  once  proceeded  to  the 
office,  and  after  a  short  conference  with  the  Mayor,  sent  for 
Captain  George  P.  Jouett,  who  was  Captain  of  Company  A  in 
the  Home  Guard,  and  ordered  him  to  call  his  company  together 
at  once,  to  be  held  on  guard  during  the  night.  He  directed 
him  to  send  to  the  Mayor's  office  a  box  of  ammunition,  and  at 
the  hour  when  the  police  were  to  meet  for  roll-call  to  send  a 
file  of  men  thither  with  an  order  for  ammunition.  This  was 
done,  and  Mr.  Speed,  as  commander  of  the  Home  Guard, 
opened  the  ammunition  box  and  delivered  the  cartridges  to 
the  file  of  men  in  the  presence  of  the  police  of  the  city,  saying 
to  the  officer  who  received  them  that  he  must  keep  his  men 
ready  for  service  at  a  moment's  warning.  The  scene  made 
the  impression  desired.  The  news  was  spread  by  the  police 
throughout  the  city  that  the  Home  Guard  was  prepared  for 
any  emergency,  and  the  tumult  soon  subsided.  .  .  . 

"  The  election  of  members  of  the  Legislature  took  place  on 
the  fifth  of  August.  Recruiting  under  the  Colonels  who  had 
been  commissioned  by  General  Nelson  had,  in  the  meantime, 
been  going  forward;  and  on  the  day  after  the  election  the 
recruits  began  to  arrive  at  Richard  Robinson's  farm,  the  place 
which  had  been  selected  for  a  camp.  Several  prominent  gen 
tlemen,  in  addition  to  the  officers  themselves,  were  present. 
The  camp  was  formally  opened  with  public  addresses,  all 
breathing  a  spirit  of  devotion  to  the  country.  The  news  of 
the  establishment  of  the  camp  soon  became  known  throughout 
the  State,  and  volunteers  began  to  flock  to  '  Camp  Dick  Rob 
inson  '  not  only  from  different  parts  of  Kentucky,  but  also  from 
East  Tennessee. 

"Two  days  before  the  opening  of  the  camp,  Governor 
Harris  of  Tennessee  had  addressed  a  letter  to  Governor 
Magoffin  of  Kentucky,  on  the  subject  of  the  enlistments 
which  were  then  going  on,  as  contrary  to  the  position  of  neu 
trality  which  had  been  taken  by  the  Legislature.  The  Gov 
ernor  visited  the  neighborhood  of  the  camp,  and  on  the  twelfth 
of  August  responded  to  Governor  Harris's  letter.  In  his 


The  ' '  Lincoln  Guns  "  113 

response,  after  having  given  the  impressions  he  had  received 
of  the  opinions  of  Union  men  with  whom  he  had  conversed  in 
regard  to  the  existence  of  the  camp,  he  said,  'In  a  few  days  I 
hope  to  be  able  to  inform  your  Excellency  of  the  disbanding 
of  the  organizations  to  which  you  have  been  pleased  to  call 
my  attention.'  With  the  hope  of  accomplishing  this  object, 
the  Governor,  on  the  nineteenth  of  August,  sent  Mr.  W.  A. 
Dudley  and  Mr.  F.  K.  Hunt  as  commissioners  of  the  State  of 
Kentucky,  to  urge  the  removal  from  the  limits  of  Kentucky  of 
the  forces  in  camp  within  the  State. 

"  In  his  letter  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  he  said: 
'If  such  action  as  is  hereby  urged  be  promptly  taken,  I  firmly 
believe  the  peace  of  the  people  of  Kentucky  will  be  preserved, 
and  the  horrors  of  a  bloody  war  will  be  averted  from  a  people 
now  peaceful  and  tranquil. ' 

"  The  gentlemen  named  at  once  proceeded  to  Washington, 
and  had  an  interview  with  the  President.  On  the  following 
Monday,  the  26th,  the  President  handed  them  a  letter  to  the 
Governor,  written  on  the  24th,  in  which,  after  reviewing 
the  facts  and  respectfully  declining  to  remove  the  force  from  the 
State,  he  added:  'I  most  cordially  sympathize  with  your  Ex 
cellency  in  the  wish  to  preserve  the  peace  of  my  own  native 
State,  Kentucky;  but  it  is  with  regret  I  search,  and  cannot 
find,  in  your  not  very  short  letter,  any  declaration  or  intima 
tion  that  you  entertain  any  desire  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Federal  Union.' 

"  While  the  Governor  was  trying  to  bring  about  the  disband- 
ment  of  the  volunteers  at  Camp  Dick  Robinson  through  the 
agency  of  commissioners  sent  to  Washington,  others  had  a 
mind  to  try  to  bring  it  about  by  intercepting  the  arms  designed 
for  the  camp.  Doctor  Ethelbert  L.  Dudley,  commander  of 
the  Home  Guard  of  Lexington,  was  informed  on  Tuesday, 
August  2oth,  that  guns  for  Camp  Dick  Robinson  were  on 
their  way  thither,  and  that  they  would  reach  Lexington  that 
night.1  Apprehending  that  there  might  be  an  effort  to  seize 
them,  he  sent  Mr.  H.  K.  Milward,  afterwards  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  of  the  1 8th  Kentucky  Infantry,  to  the  camp  to  inform 
1  See  Justice  Harlan's  account,  below. 


of  THE 


ii4  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

General  Nelson  of  the  expected  arrival  of  the  guns,  and  of 
his  fears  of  trouble  with  the  rebels  in  regard  to  them.  The  dis 
tance  was  about  twenty-two  miles.  Accompanied  by  a  young 
man,  Mr.  Milward  arrived  at  the  camp  about  three  o'clock 
the  next  morning.  Arousing  General  Nelson,  at  the  risk  of  an 
explosion  of  that  officer's  well-known  wrath,  he  delivered  his 
message,  and  was  surprised  at  the  rapidity  of  the  General's 
commands,  and  at  the  quickness  which  the  Colonels  displayed 
in  answering  his  summons.  The  soldiers  were  equally  speedy  in 
obeying  the  commands  of  their  Colonels.  By  the  time  Mr.  Mil- 
ward's  horse  was  fed  and  sufficiently  rested  to  return,  infantry 
and  cavalry  were  ready  to  move.  The  detachment  was  under 
the  command  of  Colonel  Thomas  E.  Bramlette.  The  infantry 
proceeded  as  far  as  Nicholasville,  a  distance  of  ten  miles;  the 
cavalry  went  on  to  Lexington,  arriving  there  sometime  be 
tween  noon  and  one  o'clock  P.M.  The  day  was  rainy,  and 
the  men  were  not  as  yet  provided  with  suitable  army  clothing. 
The  ladies  of  Nicholasville,  seeing  this,  had  furnished  them, 
in  their  passage  through  that  place,  with  some  sort  of  covering 
for  their  shoulders  which,  at  the  same  time,  covered  the  short 
guns  which  they  carried.  On  reaching  Lexington,  the  troops 
rode  down  Mulberry  Street  into  Main.  As  they  passed  the 
Phcenix  hotel,  quite  a  number  of  persons  were  crowding  the 
windows  of  that  building,  looking  at  them.  Some  one,  either 
from  one  of  the  windows  or  from  the  sidewalk,  made  some 
remark  intimating  the  inability  of  the  cavalry  to  do  much  as 
soldiers,  when  one  of  the  cavalrymen  threw  back  his  shoulder 
cover,  displaying  his  gun,  brought  it  to  his  shoulder,  and 
pointed  it  toward  the  crowd.  The  action  was  quite  sufficient 
to  convince  and  scatter  it. 

"  The  train  bringing  the  guns  designed  for  the  camp  had 
arrived  just  before  day.  A  knowledge  of  the  arrival  of  the 
guns  was  soon  spread  throughout  the  city.  Threats  were 
given  out  that  the  rebels,  under  the  lead  of  Captain 
John  H.  Morgan's  State  Guard  company,  intended  to  cap 
ture  them.  The  blowing  of  a  bugle  from  the  roof  of  the 
company's,  armory,  on  the  northeast  corner  of  Main  and  Upper 
streets,  would  be  the  signal  for  the  members  of  the  company 


The  "  Lincoln  Guns  "  115 

to  rally  for  that  purpose.  The  Home  Guard  were  quietly 
notified  that  if  the  court-house  bell  rang  they  must  repair  to 
the  railroad  depot  where  the  guns  were.  Shortly  after  the 
arrival  of  Colonel  Bramlette  and  his  men,  a  son  of  Mr.  Henry 
Saxton  went  to  the  roof  of  the  armory  and  blew  his  bugle  loud 
and  long.  Immediately  thereafter  the  court-house  bell  began 
to  ring,  and  from  all  quarters  the  men  began  to  rally — Captain 
Morgan's  men  to  their  armory  where  their  guns  were,  and  the 
Home  Guards  to  the  depot,  with  their  guns  on  their  shoulders. 
Mr.  Hiram  Shaw,  a  nephew  of  the  gentleman  of  the  same 
name  to  whose  care  the  first  'Lincoln  guns'  sent  to  Lexington 
were  consigned,  has  furnished  me  with  an  account  of  the 
occurrences  of  that  day.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Home 
Guard.  He  says:  'I  deliberately  locked  my  store,  and  went 
down  there,'  that  is,  to  the  depot.  'Altogether  there  as 
sembled  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  to  one  hundred  and  sev 
enty-five  Home  Guards  who,  with  Colonel  Bramlette's  men, 
made  a  force  which  was  able  to  protect  the  guns  and  evidently 
meant  to  do  so.' 

"  '  It  was  a  demonstration,'  says  Mr.  Shaw,  '  which  gratified 
the  friends  and  astonished  the  enemies  of  the  government. 
Seeing  it,  and  seeing  the  uselessness  of  the  effort,  and  the 
trouble  it  would  produce,  Major  M.  C.  Johnson  and  Hon. 
John  C.  Breckinridge,  the  former  a  Union  man,  went  to  the 
armory  and  persuaded  the  men  assembled  there  not  to  attempt 
to  take  the  guns.'  Meanwhile,  '  the  Union  men  remembered 
a  piece  of  brass  artillery  which  was  kept  near  the  city  watch- 
house,  and  had  been  used  for  many  years  on  all  public  occa 
sions  when  salutes  were  in  order.  Although  much  nearer  to  the 
rebel  armory  than  to  the  depot  where  they  were  assembled,  the 
Home  Guards  sent  a  squad  of  men  to  bring  it,  which  they  did, 
and  it  was  soon  ready  to  be  used  if  it  should  be  necessary. 
No  attack,  however,  was  made.  The  guns  were  loaded  into 
the  several  wagons  necessary  to  convey  them  to  Camp  Dick 
Robinson;  the  Home  Guards  went  with  them  to  the  city  limits, 
and  trusting  them  to  the  two  hundred  cavalry  or  rather 
mounted  infantry,  they  returned  to  the  city  and  were  dismissed 
after  their  bloodless  victory.'  " 


n6  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  narrative  of  Dr. 
Stevenson  he  mentions  the  arrival  of  the  guns  by  train 
at  Lexington,  and  how  the  trouble  apprehended  was 
averted.  It  is  very  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection 
the  statement  following,  which  was  prepared  by  Justice 
John  M.  Harlan,  as  part  of  a  narrative  not  designed  for 
publication,  but  he  has  kindly  allowed  its  use  in  this 
work.  Justice  Harlan  says: 

"  The  situation  in  Kentucky  was  very  peculiar  and  very  seri 
ous.  It  was  particularly  embarrassing  to  those  who  had  no 
sympathy  with  the  rebellion  and  were  opposed  to  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union  in  any  event.  The  people  of  the  State  had  been 
educated  to  love  the  Union  arid  the  Constitution,  and  did  not 
think  that  any  errors  or  wrongs  in  the  administration  of  the 
government  justified  a  resort  to  arms  for  the  disruption  of  the 
Union.  But  the  business  interests  of  the  State  were  closely 
identified  with  those  of  the  Southern  States,  and  its  people 
were  allied  by  marriage  and  otherwise  with  the  people  of  the 
States  in  rebellion.  There  was  a  line  of  division  running 
through  the  whole  State,  the  majority  of  the  people,  however, 
being  unquestionably  favorable  to  the  Union  cause.  The 
difficulties  under  which  the  Union  people  labored  were  in 
creased  by  the  fact  that  the  then  Governor  of  Kentucky, 
Beriah  Magoffin,  was  in  open  sympathy  with  the  rebels,  as 
were  most  of  the  officers  of  the  State  Guard,  then,  or  shortly 
thereafter,  under  the  command  of  S.  B.  Buckner,  who  later 
on  joined  the  rebel  forces  in  the  field.  One  of  the  principal 
officers  of  the  State  Guard  was,  however,  true  to  his  country, 
viz:  General  Thomas  L.  Crittenden,  a  son  of  Senator  John  J. 
Crittenden. 

"  In  the  spring  or  early  summer  of  1861,  there  was  a  called 
session  of  the  Kentucky  Legislature,  at  which  the  rebel  sym 
pathizers  attempted  to  pass  a  legislative  enactment  for  what 
was  then  styled  a  '  Sovereignty '  State  convention,  to  be  com 
posed  of  delegates  regularly  elected  and  empowered  -with 
authority  to  consider  the  general  situation  and  to  determine 
the  attitude  and  course  of  Kentucky  in  the  crisis  then  pending. 


The  ' '  Lincoln  Guns  "  ,  117 

The  rebels  believed  that  they  could  elect  a  majority  of  the 
delegates  to  such  a  convention,  and  they  hoped  to  have  that 
body  formally  declare  either  that  Kentucky,  as  a  State,  would 
ally  itself  directly  with  the  States  which  had  assumed  to 
secede  from  the  Union,  or  be  neutral  throughout  the  contest 
between  the  Union  government  and  the  Confederates.  It  was 
hoped  that  in  this  way  Kentucky  would,  under  the  form  of 
law,  assist  the  movement  for  a  dissolution  of  the  Union. 

"At  that  time  my  father  resided  at  Frankfort,  the  capital  of 
the  State.  I  had,  in  February,  1861,  removed  to  Louisville 
and  formed  a  partnership  in  the  practice  of  the  law  with  Hon. 
W.  F.  Bullock.  In  obedience  to  a  summons  from  my  father,  I 
went  from  Louisville  to  Frankfort  and  remained  there  some 
weeks.  With  him  and  others  I  labored  constantly  for  weeks 
with  members  of  the  Kentucky  Legislature  for  the  purpose  of 
defeating  the  scheme  for  calling  a  '  Sovereignty  '  convention — 
believing  that  the  defeat  of  that  scheme  would  result  in  hold 
ing  the  State  in  the  Union  and  depriving  those  intending  to 
assist  the  rebels  of  the  pretext  that  in  their  so  doing  they 
would  obey  the  command  of  the  State.  Well,  we  beat  the 
'  Sovereignty  '  convention  conspiracy,  and  Ireturned  to  Louis 
ville  and  resumed  the  work  of  supporting  the  Union  cause. 

"  During  the  summer  of  1861  nothing  was  talked  of  in  Ken 
tucky  except  union  and  disunion.  The  courts  were  virtually 
closed  and  there  was  but  little  business  in  my  profession. 
We  determined  to  defer  decisive  action  until  the  Union  men 
of  the  State  obtained  arms,  and  in  the  meantime  educate  the 
people  as  to  the  value  of  the  Union,  and  as  to  the  horrors 
and  dangers  of  a  civil  war,  should  Kentucky  ally  itself  with 
the  rebel  forces.  Meetings  were  arranged  for  the  street  cor 
ners  in  Louisville.  A  band  of  music  was  employed  to  bring 
the  people  together.  The  speaker  usually  stood  on  a  box 
obtained  from  some  storehouse  near  by.  It  is  safe  to  say  that 
during  the  summer  of  1861  I  made  at  least  fifty  '  store-box* 
speeches  for  the  Union  cause.  The  thing  we  had  in  mind  was 
to  stay  the  tide  then  apparently  setting  towards  the  rebel 
cause,  and  to  hold  the  people  in  line  until  the  friends  of  the 
government  in  Kentucky  could  strike  effectively  for  the 


n8  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Union.  In  this  work  many  persons  were  engaged,  among 
the  number  James  Speed,  afterwards  Attorney-General  under 
Lincoln;  his  brother,  Joshua  F.  Speed,  an  early  and  trusted 
friend  of  Lincoln  while  he  (Speed)  lived  in  Illinois;  Caleb 
W.  Logan,  Chancellor  of  the  Louisville  Chancery  Court; 
George  P.  Jouett  (a  brother  of  Admiral  Jouett),  afterwards 
Lieutenant-Colonel  of  the  i5th  Kentucky  Infantry  and  killed 
at  the  battle  of  Perryville;  Hamilton  Pope;  John  W.  Barr, 
afterwards  United  States  District  Judge  at  Louisville;  John 
K.  Goodloe;  and  Mayor  John  M.  Delph.  Among  those  who 
co-operated  with  us  in  Louisville,  each  in  his  own  way,  was 
Rev.  Dr.  Edward  P.  Humphrey,  the  father  of  Judge  A.  P. 
Humphrey  of  Louisville.  The  leaders  of  the  Union  cause  in 
Central  Kentucky  were  Rev.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge,  my 
father,  James  Harlan,  Joshua  F.  Bell,  and  Thomas  E.  Bram- 
lette.  In  the  front  of  the  fight  to  hold  Kentucky  fast  to  the 
Union  was  also  John  H.  Harney,  the  veteran  editor  of  the 
Louisville  Democrat. 

"  Mr.  Lincoln  had  it  greatly  at  heart  that  the  State  in  which 
he  was  born  should  adhere  to  the  Union.  As  already  indicated, 
the  judgment  of  the  leading  Union  men  of  Kentucky  was  that 
they  should  move  slowly  and  not  have  the  State  involved  in 
actual  war  until  the  Union  people  were  armed  and  in  a  position 
to  defend  themselves  and  be  of  real  service  to  the  good  cause. 
President  Lincoln  respected  their  wishes,  and  therefore  the 
rebels  had  no  opportunity  to  say  that  Lincoln  was  attempting 
to  coerce  Kentucky  by  quartering  Federal  troops  within  its 
limits.  The  Southern  Confederacy  pursued  the  same  policy 
and  kept  its  troops  out  of  Kentucky  so  as  not  to  appear  to  be 
dragooning  our  people  into  the  support  of  the  rebel  cause. 
From  this  condition  of  things  arose  the  charge,  on  both  sides, 
that  Kentucky  was  neutral  in  the  great  contest  then  pending 
— a  position  which,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  Kentuck- 
ians  would  not  have  been  willing  to  occupy.  But  the  Union 
men  of  Kentucky  were  content  to  rest  for  a  time  under  that 
charge,  knowing  that  they  were  unarmed  while  the  rebel  sym 
pathizers  were  armed,  and  that  to  enter  the  conflict  before 
they  were  '  full  ready '  was  to  invite  disaster  to  the  Union  cause 


The  "Lincoln  Guns"  119 

in  the  State.  That  the  State  was  favorable  to  the  Union, 
although  on  the  surface  it  was  'neutral,'  was  shown  by  the 
special  Congressional  election  at  that  time — the  Union  men 
carrying,  I  think,  every  Congressional  district.  By  Union 
men  I  mean  those  who,  while  differing  from  their  brethren  in 
the  Northern  States  as  to  some  aspects  of  the  war,  yet  openly 
avowed  their  purpose  to  stand  by  the  country  at  all  hazards. 
They  advocated  the  employment  of  all  the  men  and  money 
necessary  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the  General  government 
over  every  foot  of  American  soil. 

"  Shortly  after  the  conflict  of  arms  commenced,  large  num 
bers  of  loyal  men  from  East  Tennessee  fled  from  that  State 
and  established  themselves  at  Camp  Dick  Robinson,  on  the 
Kentucky  River,  not  far  from  Lexington,  Kentucky.  They 
were  secretly  supplied  with  arms  by  some  arrangement  with 
the  government.  To  that  camp  many  loyal  men  from  the 
mountains  of  Kentucky  flocked. 

"  Just  then  there  appeared  on  the  scene  of  action  a  very 
remarkable  man — William  Nelson,  a  Kentuckian  by  birth, 
and  an  officer  (captain,  I  think,  in  the  navy).  He  had  been 
in  Washington  and  had  personally  conferred  with  Lincoln. 
He  had  expressed  a  strong  desire  to  go  to  the  assistance  of 
the  Union  men  of  his  native  State.  Lincoln  determined  to 
meet  his  wishes  and  authorized  him  (though  not  publicly)  to 
send  arms  to  Camp  Dick  Robinson,  the  men  there  being 
insufficiently  provided  for  in  that  way.  I  knew  of  Nelson's 
plans  from  reading  his  letters  to  my  father,  who  was  at  that 
time,  or  shortly  afterwards  became,  United  States  District 
Attorney  at  Louisville,  having  accepted  that  position  at  the 
urgent  request  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 

"Nelson  came  to  Cincinnati  and  shipped  from  that  city, 
over  the  Kentucky  Central  Railroad  to  Lexington,  thence  to  be 
conveyed  to  Camp  Dick  Robinson,  by  wagon,  several  boxes  of 
guns  for  the  use  of  the  men  voluntarily  assembled  at  that 
camp.  In  some  way  the  rebel  sympathizers  at  Cynthania  ob 
tained  information  as  to  these  guns  being  on  the  railroad 
train,  and  when  the  train  got  in  sight  of  Cynthania,  Harrison 
County,  the  conductor  saw  a  large  crowd  at  the  depot,  appar- 


120  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

ently  under  the  control  of  Captain  Joe  .Desha.  Correctly 
supposing  that  they  intended  to  seize  the  guns  and  prevent 
them  from  reaching  Camp  Dick  Robinson,  he  immediately 
ordered  the  train  to  be  stopped,  and  returned  with  the  train 
and  the  guns  to  Cincinnati,  or  rather  to  Covington.  I  com 
municated  the  facts  to  Joshua  F.  Bullitt,  then  a  Judge  of  the 
Court  of  Appeals  and  at  that  time  an  earnest  opponent  of  the 
rebel  cause,  although  at  a  later  date  he  became  an  opponent 
of  the  war,  because  of  the  course  of  the  administration  of 
Lincoln  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  result  of  the  confer 
ence  with  Bullitt  was  that  I  requested  Nelson  to  ship  the  guns 
by  boat  from  Cincinnati  to  Louisville  on  a  named  night, 
marked  to  my  address  at  Louisville,  Kentucky.  I  wrote  to 
Dr.  Ethelbert  L.  Dudley,  the  leading  physician  at  Lexington 
and  the  captain  of  a  company  of  Union  Home  Guards,  telling 
him  of  what  we  proposed  to  do  with  the  guns.  I  informed 
him  that  the  guns  would  leave  Louisville  before  daylight  on  a 
certain  day  and  would  reach  Lexington  precisely  at  a  named 
hour.  We  were  enabled  to  be  thus  specific  as  to  time,  be 
cause  the  Superintendent  of  the  railroad  from  Louisville  to 
Lexington — Colonel  Sam  Gill — was  a  Union  man  and  cheer 
fully  co-operated  with  us.  I  should  say  that  there  were  two 
companies  of  volunteers  at  Lexington,  composed  of  the  first 
young  men,  socially,  in  the  city — one  commanded  by  Dr.  Dud 
ley,  the  other  by  John  H.  Morgan,  who  subsequently  joined 
the  Confederate  military  forces  and  became  a  noted  cavalry 
officer  on  that  side. 

"  The  guns  were  shipped  from  Cincinnati  to  Louisville  on 
the  regular  boat,  which  arrived  at  the  Louisville  wharf  about 
two  or  three  o'clock  in  the  morning.  I  was  at  the  wharf  to 
receive  them.  Bullitt  was  with  me.  We  had  them  put  on  drays 
previously  provided,  and  carried  them  across  the  city  to  the 
depot  of  the  Louisville  and  Lexington  Railroad  on  Jefferson 
Street — Bullitt  and  myself  walking  in  the  street  by  the  side  of 
the  drays,  each  being  well  armed  to  resist  any  attempt  to  take 
the  guns.  The  train  carrying  the  guns  left  Louisville  on  time 
and  arrived  at  Lexington  exactly  at  the  hour  fixe  1.  In  some 
way  the  Confederate  company  ascertained  what  'was  up,'  so 


The  "  Lincoln  Guns"  121 

that  as  soon  as  the  train  carrying  the  guns  reached  the  depot, 
an  alarm  bell  was  sounded  for  the  assembling  of  Morgan's 
men  at  their  armory.  Immediately  another  alarm  was  sounded 
for  the  assembling  of  Dudley's  men  at  their  armory.  The 
young  men  of  each  company  responded  promptly,  met  at  their 
respective  armories,  and  marched  quickly  to  the  depot,  taking 
different  routes.  The  two  companies  reached  the  depot  at  the 
same  moment,  and  an  immediate  conflict  was  imminent.  Just 
then,  in  the  nick  of  time,  four  hundred  cavalrymen,  armed 
with  Henry  rifles,  appeared  on  the  hill  just  above  the  depot 
building.  They  were  comanded  by  Colonel  Bramlette  (after 
wards  Governor  of  Kentucky),  and  were  from  Camp  Dick 
Robinson.  John  C.  Breckinridge,  who  had  not  then  'gone 
South,'  appeared  at  this  moment  on  the  scene  and  pleaded 
for  peace.  He  succeeded.  No  gun  was  fired.  The  men 
from  Camp  Dick  Robinson  took  possession  of  the  guns  and 
carried  them  away  with  them.  If  a  single  shot  had  been  fired, 
the  loss  of  life  would  have  been  great,  for  the  two  Lexington 
companies  were  composed  of  men  used  to  the  handling  of  guns 
and  full  of  fight. 

"  It  may  be  thought  strange  that  the  men  from  Camp  Dick 
Robinson  appeared  just  at  the  precise  moment  they  were 
needed.  The  explanation  is  that  in  my  note  to  Dr.  Dudley, 
above  referred  to,  he  was  asked  to  send  a  messenger  at  once 
to  Camp  Dick  Robinson,  and  request  that  the  cavalry  be  at 
the  depot  at  a  particular  hour  and  receive  the  guns.  My  let 
ter  reached  Lexington  by  the  evening  mail  of  the  night  before 
the  train  carrying  the  guns  reached  that  city,  and  after  Dr. 
Dudley  had  retired  for  the  night.  He  had  been  on  horseback 
all  day  visiting  patients  in  the  country  and  was  quite  exhausted 
by  his  labors.  Mrs.  Dudley  concluded  not  to  disturb  him, 
but  having  read  my  letter,  she  went  quietly  to  the  room  of  her 
son,  who  was  a  boy  of  about  seventeen,  and  informed  him 
that  he  must  take  a  horse  and  go  at  once  with  my  letter  to 
Camp  Dick  Robinson.  The  gallant  boy  said  he  would  go,  or 
die  in  the  effort  to  reach  the  camp.  He  made  himself  ready 
for  the  journey  and  travelled  nearly  all  the  night,  reaching  the 
camp  in  time  to  bring  the  cavalry  to  Lexington."  * 
*See  Appendix,  §  n,  p.  345. 


CHAPTER  IX 

ABANDONMENT   OF  NEUTRALITY 

F  OOKING  back  upon  the  course  of  events  in  the 
L  early  part  of  1861,  and  seeing  how  rapidly  the 
storm-cloud  of  war  came  over  the  country,  it  is  now  plain 
that  Kentucky's  attitude  of  neutrality  was  necessarily 
temporary.  It  is  still  believed  by  many  that  it  saved 
Kentucky  to  the  Union,  and  that  only  in  this  way  would 
it  have  been  saved,  but  this  is  more  than  doubtful.  The 
temper  of  the  Kentucky  people  was  displayed  in  so  many 
ways  against  disunion,  and  in  favor  of  the  Union,  it  is 
reasonably  certain  that  if  the  leaders  had  taken  ground 
from  the  start  square  against  the  South,  and  for  the 
Union,  the  people  would  have  been  with  them.  This  is 
proved  by  their  voting.  It  is  also  shown  by  the 
character  of  resolutions  adopted  in  various  parts  of  the 
State.  On  May  I5th  a  large  meeting  was  held  in  Garrard 
County,  at  which  it  was  resolved: 

'  That  we  regard  the  doctrine  of  secession  as  illegal, 
unconstitutional,  and  impolitic — subversive  of  all  legal 
restraints  and  constitutional  obligation — destructive  of  all 
permanent  government,  and  tending  only  to  political 
chaos  and  anarchy."  (Louisville  Journal,  May  /th.) 

On  May  3ist,  at  a  large  meeting  in  Casey  County,  it 
was  resolved : 

"  That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  people  of  Kentucky  to  adhere 
to  the  Union  and  frankly  resent  any  effort  to  change  the  rela 
tions  of  Kentucky  to  the  Federal  government. 

"  That  it  is  the  duty  of  our  Representative  In  Congress  to 

122 


Abandonment  of  Neutrality  123 

support  the  government  of  the  United  States  in  all  legal  and 
Constitutional  measures  the  adoption  of  which  may  be  neces 
sary  to  defeat  the  revolutionists  of  the  rebellious  States." 

At  this  meeting,  Hon.  Aaron  Harding  was  nominated 
for  Congress.  (Louisville  Journal,  June  7th.) 

Like  resolutions  were  reported  from  many  other 
counties.  The  people  were  really  in  advance  of  their 
leaders,  and  this  was  not  unnatural.  The  leaders  felt  the 
weight  of  responsibility,  which  made  them  more  or  less 
conservative,  but  the  people  became  restive  under  the 
situation  in  which  they  saw  they  were  placed.  There 
was  a  growing  feeling  that  they  were  unprotected. 
Through  all  the  discussion  of  neutrality  it  was  known 
that  Kentucky  had  few  arms  or  munitions  of  war,  and 
that  all  talk  about  repelling  invaders  was  idle  bravado. 
Kentucky  was  situated  in  the  heart  of  the  country,  sur 
rounded  by  other  States,  and  could  get  nothing  except 
by  its  being  brought  through  them.  The  lofty  language  of 
Governor  Magoffin's  proclamation,  "Warning  all  States, 
whether  separate  or  united,  and  especially  the  United 
States  and  the  Confederate  States"  not  to  come  on 
Kentucky  soil,  was  only  calculated  to  cause  people  to 
wonder  and  smile,  who  knew  that  the  State  was  in  no 
condition  to  assert  such  independence. 

It  was  a  wholly  different  proposition  to  undertake 
mediation.  The  State  might  wisely  enough,  in  the 
beginning,  when  there  was  still  hope  of  preventing  war, 
refrain  from  taking  sides  for  the  express  purpose  of 
peace.  There  was  both  wisdom  and  patriotism  in  the 
speech  of  Hon.  James  Guthrie,  at  Louisville,  April  2Oth, 
in  which  he  said : 

"I  want  Kentucky  to  take  her  stand  for  peace.  Let 
us  stand  fearlessly  and  cry  peace ;  hold  fast  to  that  which 
is  good,  and  let  those  who  want  to  make  the  experiment 
of  secession  go  as  individuals." 

There  was  nothing  but  consistent  good  faith  from  the 


124  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

first,  in  standing  out  resolutely  against  secession,  and  it 
was  reasonably  supposed  at  the  time  it  might  moderate 
the  excitement  in  the  South. 

But  when  the  idea  of  neutrality  reached  the  point 
of  independence  of  both  the  United  States  and  the 
Confederate  States,  it  practically  led  to  a  position  that 
would  take  the  State  out  of  the  Union,  though  not  into 
the  Confederacy.  The  very  absurdity  of  the  idea  led  to 
the  practical  abandonment  of  neutrality,  although  the 
name  was  kept  up  through  the  summer  months  of  1861. 

It  is  necessary  at  this  point  to  consider  the  status  of 
the  "State  Guard,"  as  it  was  called.  On  the  5th  of 
March,  1860,  the  Legislature  had  enacted  a  law  for  the 
better  organization  of  the  State  militia.  It  provided  that 
the  Kentucky  militia  should  be  divided  into  three  classes, 

1.  The  Active  Militia, 

2.  The  Enrolled  Militia, 

3.  The  Reserve  Militia. 

Only  the  first  two  classes  require  notice,  as  the  Reserve 
was  to  consist  of  persons  over  and  below  the  ordinary 
military  age. 

The  Active  Militia  consisted  of  volunteers  who  made  up 
companies,  and  became  regularly  organized.  These  were 
known  as  the  State  Guard. 

The  Enrolled  Militia  were  those  who  were  of  the 
military  age,  but  unorganized. 

The  organization  of  the  Active  Militia  was  promptly 
entered  upon.  Many  volunteer  companies  were  made 
up,  and  as  the  machinery  of  the  State  government  was 
in  the  hands  of  men  who  had  the  same  politics  as  the 
Governor,  it  was  natural  that  the  companies  were  of  the 
same  political  complexion,  as  a  general  thing.  These 
companies  constituted  what  was  called  in  the  Act,  the 
Kentucky  State  Guard.  The  Act  provided  that  the 
State  Guard  should  be  a  single  corps  composed  of 
divisions,  brigades,  regiments,  battalions,  and  companies. 


Abandonment  of  Neutrality          125 

Provision  was  made  for  arming  and  equipping  the  State 
Guard,  and  general  officers  were  provided.  So  prompt 
was  the  organization  under  this  law  that  in  January,  1861, 
the  report  of  the  Adjutant-General  of  the  State  showed 
there  were  forty-five  companies  fully  armed,  uniformed, 
and  equipped.  General  Simon  Bolivar  Buckner  was  the 
Inspector-General  and  Commander.  In  less  than  three 
months  the  number  was  almost  doubled. 

In  this  organization,  therefore,  there  were  in  the  neigh 
borhood  of  six  thousand  equipped  soldiers,  and,  generally 
speaking,  with  Southern  tendencies.  One  of  the  irrita 
tions  of  that  time  was  that  difficulties  were  found  in  the 
way  of  organizing  companies  which  would  be  made  up  of 
Union  men,  while  no  difficulty  was  experienced  on  the 
other  side.  The  whole  of  the  State  Guard,  however, 
was  not  secession  in  sentiment.  It  will  be  seen  that 
some  of  the  companies  became  the  nuclei  of  Union 
regiments  a  little  later. 

General  Simon  Bolivar  Buckner,  a  graduate  of  West 
Point  and  an  officer  of  the  Mexican  war,  was  made 
Inspector-General  with  the  rank  of  Major-General,  and 
was  the  Commander  of  the  State  Guard.  General 
Thomas  L.  Crittenden,  son  of  Hon.  John  J.  Crittenden, 
a  graduate  of  West  Point  and  an  officer  of  the  Mexican 
war,  was  made  Brigadier-General,  and  Lloyd  Tilghman 
and  Roger  W.  Hanson  were  Colonels. 

In  the  break-up  which  occurred  upon  the  abandonment 
of  neutrality,  General  Buckner  went  South  and  rose  to 
the  rank  of  Lieutenant-General  in  the  Confederate 
service.  General  Crittenden  adhered  to  the  Union  and 
served  with  distinguished  ability  throughout  the  war. 
Lloyd  Tilghman  was  not  a  Kentuckian.  He  went  South 
and  became  a  Brigadier-General.  Roger  Hanson  became 
Colonel  of  a  Confederate  regiment  from  Kentucky  and 
was  killed  at  Stone  River. 

The  two  chief  officers  of  the  State  Guard  were  types 


126  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

of  the  martial  spirit  of  Kentucky.  It  would  be  equally 
wrong  to  charge  either  with  bad  faith.  Each  one  acted 
from  conviction  of  his  duty  at  the  time,  and  each  one  was 
faithful  to  the  cause  he  espoused.  When  the  struggle 
ended  General  Crittenden  continued  in  the  military 
service  with  high  rank  in  the  regular  army,  until  the 
close  of  his  life,  and  General  Buckner,  who  is  still  living, 
has  continuously  exerted  a  wholesome  patriotic  influence 
as  a  leading  citizen  of  his  State. 

The  attitude  of  the  State  Guard  was  a  cause  of  grave 
apprehension  to  the  Kentucky  Unionists.  It  being  an 
armed  force  and  controlled  generally  by  those  who  were  in 
sympathy  with  the  South,  a  strong  desire  naturally  grew 
up  for  the  organization  and  arming  of  a  force  that  would 
support  the  Union  cause.  That  which  was  natural  took 
place.  The  Unionists  sought  to  get  arms  where  they 
could,  and  this  led  to  the  introduction  into  the  State  of 
the  "Lincoln  guns,"  as  they  were  called. 

On  the  part  of  some  persons,  this  was  regarded  as  in 
violation  of  neutrality,  but  it  will  be  seen  that  graver  acts 
than  these  occurred,  both  before  this  date  and  after, 
which  showed  little  regard  for  the  neutral  position  of  the 
State,  on  the  part  of  the  secessionists. 

It  is  noted  in  Collins's  Kentucky  (vol.  i.,  p.  88): 
"April  2Oth,  Captain  Joe  Desha,  with  a  company  of  over 
100  men,  leaves  Harrison  County  for  the  Confederacy. 
Other  companies  leave  from  other  parts  of  the  State." 
Again  it  is  noted,  p.  90,  "May  I5th,  a  regiment  of  troops 
from  Kentucky,  under  Colonel  Blanton  Duncan,  now  at 
Harper's  Ferry,  Va. ,  in  the  Confederate  army." 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  neutrality  idea  was  formally 
introduced  in  the  Kentucky  Legislature  on  the  2Qth  of 
January.  Before  that,  and  afterward,  it  was  the  stand 
of  Kentucky,  not  by  reason  of  legislative  adoption,  but 
simply  as  a  general  popular  sentiment,  and  excepting  the 
proviso  in  the  Act  of  May  24th,  that  the  arms  to  be 


Abandonment  of  Neutrality  127 

procured  were  not  to  be  used  either  against  the  United 
States  or  the  Confederate  States,  Kentucky  neutrality 
was  not  based  on  any  Act  of  the  Legislature. 

But  the  idea  and  plan  of  neutrality  existed  as  plainly 
as  early  as  January  2Qth  as  it  ever  did  afterward.  There 
fore,  if  there  could  be  violation  of  neutrality  in  May  by 
the  introduction  of  the  ''Lincoln  guns,"  or  at  any  later 
date,  it  was  equally  susceptible  of  violation  in  April.  The 
events  of  April,  therefore,  are  rich  in  interest,  as  they 
show  how  the  disunionists  were  then  acting,  and  at  what 
disadvantages  the  Unionists  were  placed. 

The  fact  that  in  April,  1861,  troops  were  raised  in 
Kentucky,  and  left  the  State  organized  and  equipped,  and 
with  colors  flying,  led  to  the  strong  language  used  in  a 
speech  in  the  Kentucky  Senate,  on  the  2ist  of  May,  by 
Hon.  (afterwards  General)  Lovell  H.  Rousseau.  He  said : 

"  The  neutrality  that  fights  all  on  one  side,  I  do  not  under 
stand.  Troops  leave  Kentucky  in  broad  daylight,  and  our 
Governor  sees  them  going  to  fight  against  our  own  govern 
ment,  yet  nothing  is  said  or  done  to  prevent  them.  Is  this  to 
be  our  neutrality?  If  it  is,  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  it.  If  we 
assume  a  neutral  position,  let  us  be  neutral  in  fact." 

It  must  be  remembered  that  it  was  in  April  that 
Fort  Sumter  was  fired  on,  and  immediately  after  came 
President  Lincoln's  call  for  troops,  to  which  Governor 
Magoffin  replied : 

"I  say  emphatically  Kentucky  will  furnish  no  troops 
for  the  wicked  purpose  of  subduing  her  sister  Southern 
States." 

At  the  same  time  a  call  went  to  him  from  the  President 
of  the  Confederacy.  The  answer  to  this,  whatever  it 
was,  appears  to  have  been  sent  by  a  private  messenger, 
and  was  perhaps  an  oral  message.1 

Concerning  this  answer  and  the  events  which  occurred 

1  See  Appendix,  §  12,  p.  346. 


i28  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

just  at  that  time,  the  following  dispatches  found  in  the 
records  show  the  entire  disregard  of  Kentucky  neutrality, 
both  at  home  and  at  the  Southern  capital : 

14  MONTGOMERY,  April  23,  1861. 
"GOVERNOR  MAGOFFIN, 
"  FRANKFORT,  KY. 

"  If  you  received  my  dispatch  of  yesterday,  requesting  you 
to  furnish  a  regiment,  I  shall  be  obliged  to  know  your  answer. 

"  L.  P.  WALKER." 
(War  Records,  Serial  No.  127,  p.  234.) 

No  answer  to  this  by  Governor  Magoffin  is  found,  but 
there  is  a  letter  written  by  Blanton  Duncan  to  Hon.  L.  P. 
Walker,  Secretary  of  War,  in  which  he  says  the  dispatch 
was  received  by  Governor  Magoffin  in  his  presence,  and 
as  the  Governor  "could  not  respond  from  motives  of 
policy,  I  have  done  so  individually." 

The  letter  says : 

"  I  immediately  sent  orders  to  my  companies  to  move  and 
they  have  done  so,  hurriedly  and  without  their  ranks  full. 
Captain  Jo  Desha,  Captain  J.  D.  Pope,  Captain  J.  B.  Harvey, 
and  Captain  Lapille  left  for  Nashville  this  afternoon  with 
about  300  men." 

The  letter  goes  on  to  say,  "  The  Confederate  flag  has 
floated  gayly  to  the  breeze  as  my  men  this  evening  marched 
through  our  streets,  thousands  applauding  and  waving 
them  on."  (War  Records,  Serial  No.  108,  p.  37.) 

Blanton  Duncan,  on  the  i6thday  of  April,  published  a 
statement  in  the  Louisville  Journal^  saying: 

"As  is  well  known  throughout  the  State,  I  have  been  en 
gaged  for  some  weeks  past  organizing  a  regiment  to  be  ready 
to  assist  the  Southern  States  whenever  invaded  by  Northern 
forces.  The  regiment  is  organized  and  will  soon  be  called 
for,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  dispatch  to  me  from 
Montgomery  before  hostilities  commenced." 


Abandonment  of  Neutrality  1 29 

Then  follows  the  dispatch : 

"CONFEDERATE  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

44  MONTGOMERY,  April  9,  1861. 

"  SIR:  Although  the  department  is  not  even  yet  ready  to 
accept  your  regiment,  the  Secretary  of  War  instructs  me  to 
say  to  you  that  the  aspect  of  affairs  is  such  as  to  warrant  the 
confident  belief  that  in  a  very  short  time  its  service  will  be 
very  acceptable  to  the  South.  He  therefore  trusts  that  you 
will  hold  the  regiment  prepared  to  move  instantly  on  the  call 
of  this  department. 

"  Respectfully, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"J.  H.  HOOPER, 
"  Private  Secretary." 

As  early  as  April  13,  1861,  the  Confederacy  mani 
fested  its  attitude  toward  Kentucky,  and  many  Ken- 
tuckians  manifested  their  willingness  to  serve  the 
Confederacy,  all  regardless  of  the  neutral  stand  the  peo 
ple  of  the  State  had  taken. 

As  evidence  of  this,  the  following  letter  appears : 

"  ADJUTANT  AND  INSPECTOR-GENERAL'S  OFFICE, 
"  MONTGOMKRY,  April  13,  1861. 

"  CAPTAIN  THOMAS  H.  TAYLOR, 

14  REGIMENT  OF  CAVALRY,  MONTGOMERY,  ALA. 
"SiR: 

"You  will  proceed  to  Louisville,  Ky.,  via  Memphis  and 
Nashville,  Tenn.,  and  make  examination  for  the  establishment 
of  recruiting  rendezvous  in  each  of  those  cities.  You  will  do 
the  same  in  respect  to  Frankfort,  Lexington,  Covington,  or 
Newport,  Ky.,  and  such  other  places  contiguous  thereto  as  in 
your  judgment  may  offer  facilities  for  recruiting.  You  will 
report  the  result  of  your  examination  to  this  office.  I  am 
awaiting  instructions  for  opening  rendezvous. 

"S.  COOPER, 

"Adjutant  and  Inspector-General." 
(War  Records,  Serial  No.  no,  p.  44.) 
The  following  letter  is  in  the  same  volume : 


130  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

"ADJUTANT  AND  INSPECTOR  GENERAL'S  OFFICE, 
"  MONTGOMERY,  April  23,  1861. 

"  FIRST  LIEUTENANT  GEORGE  B.  COSBY, 

"  FRANKFORT,  KY. 
"SIR: 

"As  soon  as  you  shall  have  carried  out  the  instructions  of 
the  Governor  of  Kentucky,  or  are  able  to  conform  to  these 
instructions,  you  will  report  in  person  or  by  letter  to  Captain 
Thomas  H.  Taylor  of  the  Army,  who  has  been  assigned  to  the 
duty  of  procuring  men  to  be  enlisted  in  the  Army  of  the  Con 
federate  States,  and  from  him  you  will  receive  orders  and  be 
governed  accordingly.  Captain  Taylor  will  also  supply  you 
with  funds.  His  address  will  be  Frankfort,  Ky.,  or  you  may 
hear  of  his  being  elsewhere. 

"  Very  respectfully, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"S.  COOPER, 

"  Adjutant  and  Inspector-General.'* 
(/*.,  p.  65.) 

In  the  same  volume,  page  68,  is  a  letter  from  St.  George 
Croghan  to  Hon.  L.  P.  Walker,  Confederate  Secretary  of 
War.  It  was  written  from  the  Gait  House,  Louisville, 
Ky.,  April  24,  1861.  It  states  that  on  his  arrival  at 
Louisville  he  found  no  difficulty  in  obtaining  men  for 
enlistment.  "I  had,"  says  he,  "an  interview  with  Gov 
ernor  Magoffin  last  night,  and  he  gave  me  full  permission 
to  enlist  as  many  men  as  I  desired,  although  he  has,  in 
the  last  three  days,  discountenanced  men  leaving  the 
State,  owing  to  the  anticipated  necessity  for  their  im 
mediate  service  at  home." 

This  letter  was  endorsed  "Referred  to  Adjutant- 
General  suggestively.  L.  P.  WALKER." 

It  was  again  endorsed  as  follows : 

"  ADJUTANT  AND  INSPECTOR-GENERAL'S  OFFICE, 

"April  30,  1861. 

"  Two  officers  (Lieutenant  Hood  and  Lieutenant  Bullock), 
both  of  Kentucky,  have  been  assigned  to  recruiting  duties  at 


Abandonment  of  Neutrality  131 

Louisville  under  the  superintendence  of  Captain  T.  IT.  Tay 
lor,  appointed  from  that  State.  It  is  believed  this  arrangement 
will  suffice  for  the  purpose  suggested  in  this  letter. 

"S.  COOPER, 
"Adjutant  and  Inspector-General." 

In  the  same  volume,  page  43,  is  the  following  letter 
dated  Louisville,  April  12,  1861 : 

"HON.  L.  P.  WALKER. 
"  DEAR  SIR: 

"  Yours  of  the  gth  by  Mr.  Hooper  is  at  hand.  I  will  write 
immediately  to  the  Captains  of  different  companies  to  be  in 
readiness,  and  I  doubt  not  we  will  be  able  to  rendezvous  here 
in  a  very  few  days,  if  ordered  to  do  so.  The  companies  are  in 
different  counties,  some  at  considerable  distance,  but  can 
easily  be  concentrated  upon  a  given  point  in  three  days.  It 
has  been  my  intention  to  take  them  by  boat  to  Memphis,  which 
can  be  done  at  small  cost,  and  from  thence  they  can  go  to  any 
designated  point  by  railroad.  .  .  . 

"BLANTON  DUNCAN." 

In  the  same  volume,  page  46,  is  another  letter  from 
the  same  writer  to  L.  P.  Walker,  in  which  he  says : 

"My  regiment  will  rendezvous  here  on  Tuesday 
waiting  orders  from  you,  and  all  are  eager  to  be  ordered 
South  at  once. ' ' 

In  the  same  volume,  page  53,  is  the  following  letter: 

"  NEW  ORLEANS,  April  17,  1861. 
14  L.  P.  WALKER, 

"  I  tender  the  Confederate  government  a  regiment  of 
Kentucky  Volunteers,  Blanton  Duncan,  Lieutenant-Colonel 
Commanding.  At  what  point  and  when  shall  they  be  mustered 
into  service  ?  .  .  . 

"THOS.  O.  MOORE, 
"  Governor  of  Louisiana.'* 

This  was  answered,  same  page : 


132  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

"  MONTGOMERY,  April  17,  1861. 
"  GOVERNOR  THOS.  O.  MOORE, 

"BATON  ROUGE,  LA. 

"  The  Kentucky  regiment  will  be  received  if  you  tender 
them  as  part  of  the  reserve  which  Louisiana  has  been  asked 
to  hold  organized. 

"  L.  P.  WALKER." 

In  the  same  volume,  page  56,  is  a  letter  to  L.  P. 
Walker,  dated  April  19,  1861,  advising  him  that  Blanton 
Duncan  "expects  to  send  about  1500  men  to  the  Governor 
of  Louisiana  next  week.'* 

April  26,  1861,  William  Preston  Johnston  wrote  to  the 
Confederate  Secretary  of  War  from  Louisville,  mention 
ing  the  resignation  of  his  father,  General  Albert  Sidney 
Johnston,  from  the  United  States  army.  He  says: 

<4I  saw  Governor  Magoffin  to-day,  and  he  told  me  of 
his  reply  communicated  to  you  by  messenger.  He  is 
satisfied  that  any  precipitate  action  on  the  part  of  our 
friends  will  react  and  damage  us." 

He  also  says: 

"Our  military  organizations  are  being  perfected,  but  we  are 
badly  armed,  and  I  regret  to  say  that  other  companies  are 
being  enrolled  hostile  to  the  South,  and  I  fear  equipped  with 
Federal  gold.  The  Governor,  however,  is  trying  to  entrust 
our  State  arms  only  with  the  loyal  men.  The  sentiment  of  the 
Southern  States  Rights  men  is  opposed  to  taking  action  until 
Kentucky  is  armed  and  organized."  (War  Records,  Serial 
No.  no,  p.  71.) 

The  United  States  authorities  did  not  establish  recruit 
ing  stations  in  Kentucky  as  early  as  April,  1861,  nor  did 
any  Federal  troops  march  out  of  Kentucky  with  colors 
gayly  floating  to  the  breeze,  amidst  the  plaudits  of 
Kentucky  Unionists.  And  yet  Kentucky  was  in  the 
Union,  never  went  out  of  it,  and  her  people  were  over 
whelmingly  loyal  to  the  Union. 

If  such  things  had  happened,  we  may  be  sure  a  great 


Abandonment  of  Neutrality  133 

cry  would  have  gone  up  from  the  Governor  and  all  who 
were  in  sympathy  with  the  Confederacy,  that  neutrality 
was  violated. 

Whatever  may  be  said  about  the  episode  of  the 
"Lincoln  guns,"  it  must  be  remembered  that  their 
introduction  was  antedated  by  the  conduct  of  the  Con 
federate  authorities  at  the  Southern  capital,  and  by  their 
confederates  in  Kentucky,  as  shown  in  the  dispatches 
quoted. 

At  a  later  date  President  Lincoln  undertook  to  give 
much-needed  aid  to  the  Kentucky  Unionists,  by  authoriz 
ing  General  William  Nelson  to  establish  a  camp  in 
Kentucky.  This  authority  was  given  in  July,  but 
nothing  appears  to  have  been  done  until  after  the  August 
election,  which  occurred  August  5th.  At  that  election 
the  Union  cause  was  so  overwhelmingly  triumphant,  and 
the  urgency  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  to  organize  was 
so  great,  that  General  Nelson  established  the  camp,  which 
soon  became  celebrated,  known  as  Camp  Dick  Robinson. 
This  called  for  a  protest  from  Governor  Magoffin.  There 
was  nothing  to  be  done  about  companies  being  recruited 
in  the  State  for  the  Confederacy.  There  was  nothing 
but  comfort  in  the  fact  that  the  State  Guard  was 
organized,  armed,  and  equipped,  and,  as  said  by  the 
historian,  Z.  F.  Smith,  was  "in  sympathy  with  the  cause 
of  the  South."  The  Home  Guards  had  no  arms,  or,  at 
least,  but  few.  In  addition  to  these  facts  it  may  be 
noted  that  all  along  the  border  of  Tennessee,  in  some 
places  up  to,  and  even  over,  the  State  line,  and  in  all  the 
mountain  passes,  including  Cumberland  Gap,  were 
organized  Confederate  troops.1  Besides  this,  there  were 
recruiting  camps  actually  established  in  the  State,  one 
near  Elizabethtown,  and  one  near  Glasgow,  and  one  in 
Owen  County  within  thirty  miles  of  Frankfort.  Yet  when 
the  Union  men  of  Kentucky  cast  their  magnificent  vote 

1  See  Appendix,  §  12,  p.  347. 


134  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

of  August  5th,  and  then  began  to  organize  themselves 
for  self-protection  against  reasonably  apprehended  in 
vasion  and  violence,  the  protest  came  from  the  Gov 
ernor.  He  addressed  his  letter  to  President  Lincoln, 
requesting  the  removal,  disbanding,  and  breaking  up  of 
the  camp  at  Dick  Robinson.  He  also  duly  advised 
President  Davis  of  what  he  had  done.  In  his  letter  to 
the  President  of  the  Confederacy  he  said : 

"  Since  the  commencement  of  the  present  unhappy  difficul 
ties  yet  pending  in  the  country,  the  people  of  Kentucky  had 
indicated  a  steadfast  purpose  to  maintain  a  position  of  strict 
neutrality  between  the  belligerent  parties.  .  .  .  Recently 
a  military  force  has  been  enlisted  and  quartered  by  the  United 
States  authorities  in  this  State.  I  have  on  this  day  addressed 
a  communication  and  dispatched  commissioners  to  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  urging  the  removal  of  these  troops." 

He  adds: 

"Although  I  have  no  reason  to  presume  that  the  government 
of  the  Confederate  States  contemplate  or  have  even  purposed 
any  violation  of  the  neutral  attitude  thus  assumed  by  Kentucky, 
there  seems  to  be  some  uneasiness  felt  among  the  people  of 
some  portions  of  the  State,  occasioned  by  the  collection  of 
bodies  of  troops  along  the  southern  frontier. "  (  War  Records, 
Series  i,  vol.  4,  p.  378.) 

On  the  28th  of  August  Mr.  Davis  replied  to  the  effect 
that  the  troops  along  the  frontier  "  had  no  other  ob 
ject  than  to  repel  the  lawless  invasion  of  that  State 
[Tennessee]  by  the  forces  of  the  United  States."  He 
adds  that  the  Confederacy  will  respect  Kentucky's 
neutrality  "as  long  as  her  people  will  maintain  it  them 
selves.  But  neutrality,  to  be  entitled  to  respect,  must 
be  strictly  maintained  by  both  parties"  (/£.,  396). 

President  Lincoln  sent  the  following  reply  to  Governor 
Magoffin's  letter  to  him: 

"  I  may  not  possess  full  and  precisely  accurate  knowledge 


Abandonment  of  Neutrality  135 

upon  this  subject,  but  I  believe  it  is  true  that  there  is  a  mili 
tary  camp  within  Kentucky,  acting  by  authority  of  the  United 
States,  which  force  is  not  very  large  and  which  is  not  now 
being  augmented.  I  also  believe  that  some  arms  have  been 
furnished  to  this  force  by  the  United  States.  I  also  believe 
that  this  force  consists  exclusively  of  Kentuckians  having  their 
camp  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  their  own  homes,  and  not 
assaulting  or  menacing  any  of  the  good  people  of  Kentucky. 

"  In  all  I  have  done  in  the  premises  I  have  acted  upon  the 
urgent  solicitation  of  what  I  believed  and  still  believe  to  be 
the  wish  of  a  majority  of  all  the  Union-loving  people  of 
Kentucky. 

"  While  I  have  conversed  on  this  subject  with  many  eminent 
men  of  Kentucky,  including  a  large  majority  of  her  members 
of  Congress,  I  do  not  remember  that  any  one  of  them,  or  any 
other  person  except  Your  Excellency,  and  the  bearers  of  Your 
Excellency's  letter,  has  urged  me  to  remove  the  military  force 
from  Kentucky  or  to  disband  it. 

"  One  other  very  worthy  citizen  of  Kentucky  did  solicit  me 
to  have  the  augmenting  of  the  force  suspended  for  a  time. 

"  Taking  all  the  means  within  my  reach  to  form  a  judgment, 
I  do  not  believe  it  is  the  popular  wish  of  Kentucky  that  this 
force  shall  be  removed  beyond  her  limits,  and  with  this  im 
pression;  I  must  respectfully  decline  to  remove  it. 

I  most  cordially  sympathize  with  Your  Excellency  in  the 
wish  to  preserve  the  peace  of  my  own  native  State,  Kentucky. 
It  is  with  regret  that  I  search  and  cannot  find  in  your  not  very 
short  letter,  any  declaration  or  intimation  that  you  entertain 
any  desire  for  the  preservation  of  the  Federal  Union." 

Shaler,  who  does  not  always  resolve  mooted  points  in 
favor  of  the  Union  side,  says : 

"It  is  claimed  by  many  Confederate  sympathizers  that  the 
violation  of  the  State's  neutrality  came  first  from  the  Federal 
authorities.  They  cite  the  recruiting  at  Camp  Dick  Robinson 
as  evidence  in  proof  of  their  assertion.  It  is  hardly  worth 
while  to  debate  this  question  of  precedence  when  the  action 
of  both  sides  was  so  nearly  simultaneous,  and  only  accom- 


136  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

plished  the  inevitable  overthrow  of  the  neutrality  of  the  Com 
monwealth.  Still,  after  a  careful  review  of  all  the  records, 
the  writer  has  been  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the  actual 
infringement  of  the  neutrality  proclamation  was  due  to  the 
action  of  Polk  and  Zollicoffer,  and  that  the  simultaneous 
invasion  of  the  State  at  points  some  hundreds  of  miles  apart 
shows  that  the  rupture  of  Kentucky  neutrality  was  deliberately 
planned  by  the  Confederate  authorities."  (P.  251.) 

Shaler  takes  no  note  of  the  action  of  the  Confederate 
authorities  toward  Kentucky  as  disclosed  by  the  corres 
pondence  here  quoted,  in  the  month  of  April.  It  is  true 
the  neutrality  proclamation  was  not  issued  until  May  2oth, 
but  that  did  not  strengthen  or  affect  in  any  way  the 
neutrality  stand.  It  was  only  the  personal  act  of  the 
Governor  done  at  the  request,  as  he  says,  of  good 
citizens,  and  also  done  to  protect  his  own  personal  good 
name.  Such  neutrality  as  then  was  in  Kentucky  was 
purely  a  popular  stand.  It  began  in  January,  1861,  and 
was  crystallized  in  the  resolution  offered  by  R.  T.  Jacob 
in  the  Lower  House  of  the  Legislature,  January  29th, 
but  neither  that  resolution  nor  any  other,  mentioning 
neutrality  by  name,  was  ever  adopted  by  the  Legislature. 

Therefore,  neutrality  was  as  well  violated  in  April  as 
in  July  or  August,  and  if  the  invasion  by  General  Polk, 
September  3d,  was  not  the  first  actual  violation,  then  the 
first  can  only  be  found  by  going  back  to  the  events  and 
correspondence  of  the  month  of  April. 

The  entrance  of  Polk,  September  3d,  1861,  produced 
deep  and  intense  feeling.  That  movement  was  certainly 
in  violation  of  all  thoughts  of  neutrality.  The  Legislature 
which  was  in  session  passed  resolutions  that  the  invaders 
must  be  expelled,  and  that  the  Governor  call  out  the 
military  force  of  the  State  therefor,  to  be  placed  under 
command  of  General  Thomas  L.  Crittenden.  These 
were  vetoed  by  the  Governor,  but  passed  over  the  veto, 
and  the  proclamation  was  issued. 


Abandonment  of  Neutrality  137 

At  this  crisis  the  adherents  of  each  side  began  rapidly 
to  take  position.  Here  will  be  noted  a  feature  of  the 
movement,  and  of  the  accounts  given  of  it.  It  will 
appear  in  another  chapter  that  an  instantaneous  rally  of 
the  Unionists  of  Kentucky  into  regiments  took  place,  so 
that  in  that  autumn  nearly  forty  Union  regiments  were 
filled  and  in  the  field.  It  is  of  much  interest,  therefore, 
to  know  what  number  of  Kentuckians  at  this  time  entered 
the  Confederate  service.  Confederate  General  George  B. 
Hodge,  writing  in  Collins's  History  of  Kentucky,  says : 

"  The  more  active  partisans  of  each  cause  immediately  be 
gan  to  take  decisive  positions.  The  regiment  of  State  Guards 
commanded  by  Colonel  Roger  W.  Hanson  at  once  repaired 
to  Camp  Boone,  in  Northern  Tennessee,  and  upon  that  as  a 
nucleus  gathered  companies  and  battalions  of  the  same  force, 
forming  themselves  into  the  organizations  known  during  the 
war  as  the  2d,  3d,  4th,  and  5th  Kentucky  Regiments.  They 
were  soon  joined  by  the  battalions  commanded  by  Lloyd 
Tilghman  and  a  force  commanded  by  Colonel  Wm.  D.  Lannon, 
late  a  member  of  the  Lower  House  of  Assembly.  Simon  B. 
Buckner,  the  commander  of  the  State  Guard,  repaired  to  their 
camp,  was  commissioned  by  the  Confederate  States  Briga 
dier-General,  and  took  command  of  them."  (Collins,  i,  342.) 

This  is  all  the  historian  has  upon  the  subject.  What 
he  says  would  not  lead  any  one  to  calculate  that  more 
than  five  or  six  or  seven  thousand  men  were  included. 
If  anything  like  equal  numbers  had  gone  elsewhere  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  Hodge  would  have  made  mention  of 
the  fact.  That  he  does  not,  indicates  that  those  who  did 
go  to  other  points  were  so  comparatively  few  as  not  to 
excite  the  historian's  attention. 

This  view  is  sustained  by  the  statement  of  the  histo 
rian  Z.  F.  Smith,  whose  History  of  Kentucky  was 
published  in  1886.  He  says: 

"The  State  Guards  moved  out  almost  bodily  with  the 
State  arms  retained,  following  their  commander,  General 


138  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Simon  B.  Buckner.  The  roads  were  thronged  with  the 
hurrying  volunteers,  eager  to  join  their  fortunes  with 
their  Southern  kinsmen,  and  in  a  few  months  it  is 
estimated  that  well-nigh  ten  thousand  Kentuckians  had 
gone  to  the  Confederacy."  (P.  614.) 

A  confirmation  of  Smith's  estimate  is  found  in  the 
official  records  of  the  war.  In  February,  1862,  the 
Confederate  Adjutant  and  Inspector-General  made  a 
report  giving  a  "statement  of  troops  in  the  service  of  the 
Confederate  States."  In  this  tabulated  statement,  at 
that  date,  February,  1862,  the  number  set  down  as 
furnished  by  Kentucky  is  a  little  less  than  8000,  the 
exact  number  being  7950.  (War  Records,  Serial  No. 
127,  p.  962.) 

Therefore,  at  the  first  we  have  less  than  ten  thousand 
Confederate  troops  from  Kentucky.  To  this  number  was 
afterwards  added  all  who  went  throughout  the  war;  all 
who  joined  Morgan  on  his  trips  into  Kentucky ;  all  who 
joined  Bragg  when  he  invaded  the  State;  and  who  in  any 
way  gave  their  services  to  the  Confederacy.  As  to  what 
this  total  number  was,  the  following  from  Colonel  Ed. 
Porter  Thompson's  History  of  the  Orphan  Brigade  is 
valuable.  Colonel  Thompson  was  an  ex-Confederate 
officer  who  lived  at  the  capital  of  the  State,  and  published 
his  history  in  1898.  He  says: 

"It  is  estimated  that  the  maximum  [Confederate 
soldiers  from  Kentucky]  could  not  have  exceeded  forty 
thousand." 

But  adds, 

"Rosters  and  rolls  made  at  various  times  during  the 
war,  and  now  on  file  in  the  War  Office  at  Washington, 
indicate  that  twenty-five  thousand  is  nearer  the  correct 
number." 

What  has  been  said  causes  some  of  Shaler's  statements 
on  the  subject  to  appear  so  extraordinary  it  is  difficult  to 
understand  them. 


Abandonment  of  Neutrality  139 

Speaking  of  the  time,  September  and  October,  1861, 
he  says:  "There  was  at  this  time  a  common  notion  that 
the  emigration  of  some  forty  thousand  of  the  natural 
leaders  and  fighting  men  of  the  State  had  left  it  with 
little  material  that  could  be  made  into  good  soldiers  " 

(P.  268). 

Again,  speaking  of  the  time,  February,  1862,  he  uses 
this  language:  "The  depletion  of  the  population  from 
the  going  South  of  a  force  that  may  be  estimated  at 
thirty-five  thousand"  (p.  282). 

At  a  later  date,  January,  1865,  he  speaks  of  "forty 
thousand  men  of  military  age  out  of  the  State  in  the 
military  service  of  the  Confederacy."  Here  he  makes 
forty  thousand  the  whole  number  from  first  to  last.  (P. 

337.) 

There  is  no  consistency  in  such  figures,  and  furthermore 
no  foundation  for  them. 

The  truth  seems  to  be  that  upon  the  break-up  of 
neutrality  in  September,  1861,  there  was  an  instantaneous 
movement  on  both  sides.  The  Kentuckians  who  rushed 
off  to  the  support  of  the  Confederacy  must  have  been 
under  eight  thousand.  The  Kentuckians  who  rallied  to 
the  flag  of  the  Union  rapidly  filled  up  between  thirty  and 
forty  regiments,  and  if  we  include  the  Home  Guard 
companies,  more  men  entered  the  Union  service  at  that 
time  than  went  into  the  Confederate  service  throughout 
the  entire  struggle. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   RALLY 

REAT  injustice  has  been  done  to  the  Unionists  of 
Kentucky  by  the  use  in  historical  writing  of  hasty 
and  unguarded  expressions  made  in  time  of  excitement 
by  prominent  persons  who  were  in  error  at  the  time.  It  is 
of  no  consequence  by  whom  a  statement  is  made,  or  by 
whom  an  opinion  is  given,  if,  upon  investigation,  it  can 
be  shown  that  the  statement  or  opinion  is  clearly  wrong. 
From  the  beginning  of  the  war  all  through  its  course,  and 
through  all  the  years  since,  there  has  been  more  or  less 
misunderstanding  of  Kentucky's  true  attitude  in  the  war. 
It  was  this  known  and  felt  misapprehension  that  led 
General  Lindsey  in  the  preface  to  the  Adjutant-General's 
Report  to  use  the  language :  ' '  It  has  been  fashionable  with 
some  to  reflect  upon  the  loyalty  of  our  State."  The 
movements  of  the  war  period  were  so  rapid  and  vast  no 
one  took  time  to  remove  erroneous  impressions  which 
may  have  started  accidentally  or  through  thoughtlessness, 
and  as  no  history  of  Kentucky  has  been  written  which 
might  correct  errors,  they  have  been  suffered  to  remain 
uncontradicted,  although  they  were  in  fact  contradicted  at 
the  time  by  the  events  then  taking  place. 

A  communication  from  Adjutant-General  L.  Thomas 
to  the  War  Department,  October  21,  1861,  contains  the 
following  remarkable  statement. 

"Left  Indianapolis  October  16  for  Louisville,  Ky.,  where 
we  arrived  12:30  o'clock  p.  M.,  and  had  an  interview  with 
General  Sherman,  commanding  the  Department  of  the  Cum- 

140 


The  Rally  141 

berland.  He  gave  a  gloomy  picture  of  affairs  in  Kentucky, 
stating  that  the  young  men  were  generally  secessionists  and 
had  joined  the  Confederates,  while  the  Union  men,  the  aged 
and  conservatives,  would  not  enroll  themselves  to  engage  in 
conflict  with  their  relations  on  the  other  side.  But  few  regi 
ments  could  be  raised. ' '  (  War  Records,  series  i,  vol.  4,  p.  3 13. ) 

On  the  loth  of  October,  1861,  General  Sherman 
himself,  in  a  letter  to  President  Lincoln,  said:  "The 
Kentuckians,  instead  of  assisting,  call  from  every  quarter 
for  protection  against  local  secessionists.'*  (War  Records, 
series  I,  vol.  4,  p.  300.) 

General  McCook  also  said  in  a  letter  to  General 
Sherman,  dated  November  8,  1861 :  "I  have  no  faith  in 
Kentucky's  loyalty." 

These  expressions  have  been  quoted  in  historical  works, 
and  have  aided  in  giving  an  erroneous  and  unjust  idea  of 
the  true  condition  of  affairs  in  Kentucky  at  that  time. 
The  officers  named  are  of  high  authority,  and  they  were 
so  situated  that  they  ought  to  have  known  the  true  state 
of  the  case.  But  even  the  most  astute  men  may  fall  into 
error,  and  if  the  error  can  be  shown  conclusively  it  can 
only  be  said  that  a  mistake  was  made,  even  if  made  by 
such  distinguished  men. 

The  injustice  done  gives  reason  for  a  distinct  and 
definite  statement  of  the  attitude  of  Kentucky  at  that 
time  toward  the  war.  It  has  been  shown  how  the 
Kentucky  people  voted  in  August,  1861,  and  previously. 
A  majority  of  nearly  sixty  thousand  for  the  Union 
ought  to  give  assurance  of  their  loyalty,  in  so  far  as 
expression  at  the  polls  can  give  it.  But  action  is  better 
than  words,  and  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  Kentucky 
people  actually  enlisted  in  the  war  to  fight  as  they  voted, 
that  surely  ought  to  be  a  satisfactory  answer  to  every 
possible  question. 

General  Sherman  is  reported  as  saying  the  young  men 
of  Kentucky  were  generally  secessionists,  and  the  others 


142  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

would  not  enroll  themselves  in  the  conflict.     Also,  that 
few  regiments  could  be  raised  in  Kentucky. 

Now,  at  that  time,  October  and  November,  1861,  it  is 
a  remarkable  fact  that  more  young  men  had  enlisted  in 
Union  regiments  in  Kentucky  than  went  into  the  Confeder 
ate  service  all  toldy  throughout  the  whole  period  of  the 
war.  In  a  letter  to  the  present  writer,  dated  January 
1 8,  1897,  while  the  History  of  the  Union  Regiments  of 
Kentucky  was  in  course  of  preparation,  Colonel  L.  H. 
Rousseau  used  the  following  language : 

"I  am  glad  to  know  you  are  engaged  upon  a  history  of 
the  Kentucky  regiments.  They  sprang  to  the  country's 
defence  promptly  and  made  a  fine  record.  No  proper 
account  of  them  has  ever  been  made." 

Also,  Justice  John  M.  Harlan  in  a  letter  at  the  same 
time,  said: 

"The  country  at  large  has  never  properly  understood 
what  was  accomplished  by  the  Union  men  of  the  border 
States." 

In  the  year  1866  the  Adjutant-General  of  Kentucky, 
General  D.  W.  Lindsey,  published  his  report  in  two 
large  volumes,  giving  the  names  and  dates  of  enrolment 
of  all  the  Kentucky  soldiers  in  the  Union  service.  Those 
volumes  are  an  enduring  monument  to  the  fact  that  the 
loyal  Kentuckians  "sprang  to  their  country's  defence." 
Upon  their  pages  it  is  set  forth  in  perpetual  remembrance 
that  in  the  summer  and  fall  of  1861  twenty-eight  full 
regiments  of  infantry  and  six  full  regiments  of  cavalry 
were  enlisted  and  put  in  the  field. 

In  his  report  the  Adjutant-General  says : 

"Under  circumstances  far  more  trying  than  those  sur 
rounding  any  other  States  in  the  Union,  Kentucky 
promptly  responded  to  the  quotas  assigned  her." 

The  rosters  in  his  work  show  that  a  large  proportion  of 
the  men  who  enlisted  in  the  summer  and  fall  of  1861 
enlisted  in  the  months  of  August,  September,  and 


The  Rally    .  143 

October.  Two  months  after  October,  the  Adjutant- 
General  made  a  report  showing  the  organization  of  the 
twenty-eight  infantry  regiments  with  24,026  men,  six 
regiments  of  cavalry,  4979  men,  and  two  batteries  of  198 
men;  in  all,  29,203.  Besides  these  there  were  numerous 
companies  of  Home  Guards. 

Every  one  of  those  regiments  had  a  proud  record. 
Many  of  them  were  in  active  service  before  they  were 
mustered  into  the  service.  Some  went  with  General 
Sherman  from  Louisville  to  Muldraugh's  Hill  to  resist 
the  advance  of  General  S.  B.  Buckner  in  September, 
1861.  Some  fought  at  Barbourville,  and  some  at  Green 
River;  some  at  Albany  and  some  at  London,  in  the  same 
month.  In  October,  others  were  engaged  at  Upton  Hill, 
Camp  Wild  Cat,  West  Liberty,  Cave  City,  Woodbury, 
Morgantown,  and  Rochester;  in  November,  at  Ivy 
Mountain,  Brownsville,  Somerset;  in  December,  at 
Bacon  Qreek,  Rowletts,  Sacramento;  in  January,  1862, 
at  Paintsville,  Middle  Creek,  Mill  Spring,  and  Pound  Gap. 

The  regiments  which  thus  sprung  to  the  defence  of  the 
country  were  organized,  to  a  large  extent,  in  the  field. 
It  has  been  well  said  of  them,  "In  many  instances  their 
camp  guards  while  in  process  of  formation  were  the  out 
posts  of  the  army." 

When  respect  for  neutrality  prevented  organization  in 
Kentucky,  Camp  Joe  Holt  was  established  opposite 
Louisville,  on  the  Indiana  side,  and  Camp  Clay  near 
Cincinnati.  In  the  former  Lovell  H.  Rousseau  assembled 
the  men  which  largely  made  up  the  Fifth  Infantry  and 
Second  Cavalry,  also  Battery  A.  Rousseau  was  the  first 
Colonel  of  the  Fifth  Infantry,  but  soon  became  Major- 
General,  and  the  regiment  was  led  by  Colonels  H.  M. 
Buckley  and  William  W,  Berry,  until  the  close  of  the 
war.  The  Second  Kentucky  Cavalry  was  led  by  Colonels 
Buckner  Board  and  Thomas  P.  Nicholas,  and  Lieutenant- 
Colonels  Thos.  B.  Cochran,  Elijah  S.  Watts,  W.  H. 


144  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Eifort,  and  Owen  Starr,  Colonel  Nicholas  being  the  son 
of  the  eminent  jurist,  S.  S.  Nicholas,  and  Colonel  Cochran 
afterwards  was  Chancellor  of  the  Louisville  Chancery 
Court. 

At  Camp  Clay  the  First  Kentucky  Infantry  was 
organized  by  Colonel  J.  V.  Guthrie,  and  the  Second 
Infantry  by  Colonel  W.  E.  Woodruff.  These  two  regi 
ments  were  in  West  Virginia  as  early  as  July,  1861,  fight 
ing  under  Generals  McClellan,  Rosecrans,  and  J.  D. 
Cox,  where  they  remained  until  February,  1862,  when 
they  joined  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland  and  fought  at 
Shiloh.  They  served  in  all  the  campaigns  of  the  Army 
of  the  Cumberland.  The  First  was  for  a  long  time  led 
by  Colonel  David  A.  Enyart,  and  the  Second  by  Colonel 
Thomas  D.  Sedgwick. 

The  first  steps  toward  regimental  organization  in  the 
State  were  taken  in  Garrard  County.  General  Nelson 
arrived  there  in  July  and  appointed  Frank  Wolford,  W. 
J.  Landrum,  Judge  Thomas  E.  Bramlette,  Speed  S.  Fry, 
and  T.  T.  Garrard  to  raise  regiments.  Wolford  became 
Colonel  of  the  First  Cavalry,  with  which  was  also  Colonel 
Silas  Adams.  Bramlette  raised  the  Third  Infantry,  with 
which  served  Colonels  W.  T.  Scott,  McKee,  Spencer, 
Dunlap,  Lieutenant-Colonels  D.  R.  Collier,  William  A. 
Bullitt,  and  Majors  Charles  H.  Buford  and  John  Brennan. 

Fry  raised  the  Fourth  Infantry.  He  being  promoted, 
the  regiment  was  led  by  Colonels  John  T.  Croxton  (after 
wards  Brigadier-  and  Brevet  Major-General)  and  R.  M. 
Kelly;  Lieutenant-Colonels  Burgess  Hunt,  J.  H.  Tomp- 
kins;  Major  J.  W.  Jacobs,  now  Brigadier-General, 
U.  S.  A.,  retired. 

Garrard  raised  the  Seventh  Infantry.  Being  promoted, 
the  regiment  was  led  by  Colonel  Reuben  May  and 
Lieutenant-Colonels  J.  D.  Ridgell,  John  Lucas,  T.  J. 
Daniel;  Majors  I.  N.  Cardwell,  H.  W.  Adams,  and  E.  B. 
Treadway. 


The  Rally  145 

Also,  at  Camp  Dick  Robinson,  Colonel  William  A. 
Hoskins  began  the  organization  of  the  Twelfth  Infantry, 
which,  under  his  leadership,  and  that  of  Colonel  L.  H. 
Rousseau,  served  in  all  the  campaigns  of  the  West,  and 
ended  its  long  career  in  North  Carolina  in  June,  1865. 
With  it  were  Lieutenant-Colonel  Montgomery  Howard ; 
Majors  W.  M.  Worsham,  J.  M.  Owens;  Adjutants  J,  M. 
Hall,  J.  F.  McKee,  E.  F.  Hays,  Thomas  Speed, 

The  Kentucky  regiments  naturally  formed  wherever 
they  were  most  needed.  We  have  seen  how  they  began 
at  Camp  Dick  Robinson,  which,  though  in  the  central  part 
of  the  State,  was  near  the  dividing  line  between  the  fine 
fertile  blue-grass  section  and  the  rougher  mountain  region. 
So,  also,  for  the  protection  of  the  easterly  part  of  the 
State  a  number  of  regiments  organized :  the  Eighth 
Infantry,  under  Colonels  Sidney  M.  Barnes  and  Reuben 
May,  in  Estill  and  the  adjoining  counties ;  the  Fourteenth 
Infantry,  raised  by  Colonel  Laban  T.  Moore,  at  Louisa 
and  the  adjoining  country.  Associated  with  him  were 
Colonels  John  C.  Cochran,  George  W.  Gallup ;  Lieu 
tenant-Colonels  J.  R.  Brown,  Orlando  Brown,  R.  M. 
Thomas;  Majors  William  B.  Burke,  Drury  J,  Burchett. 

The  Sixteenth  Infantry  by  Colonel  Charles  A.  Mar 
shall,  in  the  Maysville  section  of  the  State,  With  this 
regiment  were  also  Colonels  J,  W.  Craddock  and  J.  W. 
Gault;  Lieutenant-Colonels  Joseph  Doniphan,  J,  B, 
Harris,  Thomas  E,  Burns,  John  S.  White;  and  Major  J. 
P.  Harbeson. 

The  Twenty-fourth  Infantry,  raised  by  Colonels  Lewis 
B.  Grigsby  and  John  S.  Hurt,  in  Montgomery  and 
adjoining  counties;  Lieutenant-Colonel  Lafayette  North; 
Major  William  H.  Smith. 

In  the  central  and  south  central  portions  of  the  State  a 
number  of  regiments  were  raised.  The  Sixth  Cavalry, 
Colonel  D.  J.  Hallisy,  afterwards  Colonel  Louis  D. 
Watkins*  Lieutenant-Colonels  Reuben  Mundy,  W.  P. 


146  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Roper;  Majors  Lewis  A.  Gratz,  William  H.  Fidler,  W.  H. 
Stafford;  Adjutants  Hugh  B.  Kelly,  James  R.  Meagher. 

The  Ninth  Infantry,  Colonels  B.  C.  Grider,  George  H. 
Cram;  Lieutenant-Colonels  Allen  J.  Roark,  John  H. 
Grider,  C.  D.  Bailey;  Majors  William  J.  Henson, 
William  Starling. 

The  Tenth  Infantry,  Colonels  John  M.  Harlan,  William 
H.  Hays;  Lieutenant-Colonel  G.  C.  Wharton;  Major 
Henry  G.  Davidson;  Adjutant  W.  J.  Lisle;  Quarter 
master  Samuel  Matlack. 

The  Thirteenth  Infantry,  Colonel  Edward  H.  Hobson, 
who,  being  promoted,  was  succeeded  by  Colonel  William 
E.  Hobson;  Lieutenant-Colonels  John  B.  Carlisle, 
Benjamin  P.  Estes;  Majors  John  P.  Duncan,  J.  R. 
Hindman. 

The  Fifteenth  Infantry,  Colonels  Curran  Pope,  James 
B.  Forman,  Marion  C.  Taylor;  Lieutenant-Colonels 
George  P.  Jouett,  J.  R.  Snider,  Noah  Cartright,  W.  G. 
Halpin;  Majors  William  P.  Campbell,  H.  $.  Kalfus,  James 
S.  Allen,  A.  H.  Chambers;  Adjutants  William  P.  Mc 
Dowell,  David  N.  Sharp. 

The  Eighteenth  Infantry,  Colonel  William  A.  Warner; 
Lieutenant-Colonels  John  J.  Landrum,  H.  K.  Milward. 

The  Nineteenth  Infantry,  Colonel  W.  J.  Landrum; 
Lieutenant-Colonel  John  Cowan. 

The  Twentieth  Infantry,  Colonel  Sanders  Bruce; 
Lieutenant-Colonels  Charles  S.  Hanson,  brother  of 
General  Roger  Hanson  of  the  Confederate  service, 
Thomas  B.  Waller;  Majors  Benjamin  F.  Buckner, 
Frank  E.  Walcott. 

The  Twenty-first  Infantry,  Colonels  Ethelbert  L. 
Dudley,  S.  W.  Price;  Lieutenant-Colonels  B.  A.  Wheat, 
James  C.  Evans,  W.  R.  Milward. 

The  Twenty-second  Infantry,  Colonels  Daniel  W. 
Lindsey,  George  W.  Monroe;  Lieutenant-Colonel 
William  J,  Worthington. 


The  Rally  147 

The  Twenty-third  Infantry,  Colonel  Marc  Mundy; 
Lieutenant-Colonels  John  P.  Jackson,  James  C.  Fay, 
George  W.  Northrup;  Adjutants  W.  H.  Mundy,  J.  P. 
Duke. 

The  Twenty-seventh  Infantry,  Colonel  Charles  D. 
Pennebaker;  Lieutenant-Colonel  John  H.  Ward; 
Majors  John  Carlisle,  S.  J.  Coyne,  Alex  Magruder; 
Adjutants  D.  B.  Waggener,  James  B.  Speed;  Quarter 
master  Thomas  R.  McBeath. 

The  Twenty-eighth  Infantry,  Colonels  William  P. 
Boone,  J.  Rowan  Boone;  Majors  A  .Y.  Johnson,  John 
Gault,  George  W.  Barth. 

The  Thirty-fourth  Infantry  was  organized  at  Louisville 
by  Colonel  Henry  Dent.  It  was  afterwards  led  by 
Colonels  Selby  Harney,  William  Y.  Dillard,  and  Joseph 
B.  Watkins. 

The  Fourth  Cavalry,  Colonel  Jesse  Bayles,  was 
organized  near  Louisville  in  September.  With  this  regi 
ment  were  also  Colonels  Green  Clay  Smith  and  Wickliffe 
Cooper;  Lieutenant-Colonels  L.  Gwynne,  J.  Ruckstuhl; 
Adjutants  M.  C.  Bayles,  George  K.  Speed. 

The  Fifth  Cavalry  was  raised  in  the  south  central 
section  of  the  State  by  Colonel  D.  R.  Haggard.  On 
the  3  ist  of  October,  1861,  General  Sherman,  in  a 
report,  said:  " Colonel  Haggard  is  at  Columbia  with  a 
regiment."  Connected  with  this  regiment  were  Colonel 
(afterwards  General)  W.  P.  Sanders,  who  fell  at  Knox- 
ville,  Colonel  Oliver  L.  Baldwin;  Lieutenant-Colonels 
Isaac  Scott,  W.  T.  Hoblitzell;  Majors  W.  H.  Owsley, 
T.  C.  Winfrey,  J,  Q.  Owsley,  C,  T.  Cheek,  James  L. 
Wharton;  Surgeon  William  Forrester. 

In  the  westerly  part  of  the  State  the  Seventeenth  In 
fantry  was  raised  by  Colonel  John  H.  McHenry,  and 
later  it  was  led  by  Colonel  A.  M,  Stout.  With  it  were 
Lieutenant-Colonels  Robert  Vaughn  and  Ion  B.  Nail. 

The  Twenty-fifth  Infantry  was  raised  by  Colonel  (after- 


i48  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

wards  General)  James  M.  Shackelford  and  Lieutenant-Col 
onel  Benjamin  H.  Bristow.  With  it  were  many  well-known 
men:  Majors  William  B.  Wall,  Isaac  Calhoun,  D.  M. 
Claggett;  Adjutants  John  P.  Ritter,  Ed.  L.  Starling; 
Quartermaster  B.  T.  Perkins;  Captains  Sam  K.  Cox, 
Frank  E.  Bristow,  and  T.  W.  Campbell;  also,  Lieutenants 
Campbell  H.  Johnson  and  Walter  Evans,  now  Judge 
of  the  United  States  District  Court,  Western  District 
of  Kentucky.  These  two  regiments  were  in  camp  at 
Calhoun,  on  Green  River,  about  twenty-five  miles  south 
of  Owensboro.  From  thence  they  went  to  Fort  Donelson 
and  fought  there  in  Grant's  army,  and  from  thence  to 
Shiloh.  After  that  they  were  consolidated. 

The  camp  at  Calhoun  was  commanded  by  General 
Thomas  L.  Crittenden.  The  Eleventh  Infantry  was 
there — Colonel  Pierce  B.  Hawkins,  who  was  succeeded 
by  Colonel  S.  P.  Love.  The  Lieutenant-Colonel  was  E. 
L.  Mottley;  Majors,  W.  M.  Houchin,  E.  F.  Kinnaird. 

There  also  was  the  Twenty-sixth  Infantry,  Colonel  S. 
G.  Burbridge,  who,  being  promoted,  was  succeeded 
by  Cicero  Maxwell,  and  he  by  Thomas  B.  Fairleigh. 
Lieutenant-Colonel,  James  F.  Lauck;  Majors,  John  L. 
Davidson,  J.  L.  Frost,  Ignatius  Mattingly,  C.  J.  Wilson, 
F.  M.  Page;  Adjutants,  A.  J.  Wells,  James  P.  Dawson, 
Richard  Vance;  Quartermaster,  John  H.  Morton; 
Surgeon,  E.  O.  Brown;  Chaplain,  William  M.  Grubbs. 
Among  the  Captains  were  Gabriel  Netter,  J.  H.  Ashcraft, 
and  Albert  N.  Keigwin. 

The  Third  Cavalry  was  also  at  Calhoun.  It  was  raised 
by  Colonel  James  S.  Jackson,  who,  being  promoted,  was 
succeeded  by  E.  H.  Murray,  who  also  became  a  General. 
The  Lieutenant-Colonels  were,  from  first  to  last,  A.  C. 
Gillam,  James  Holmes,  Robert  H.  King,  Green  Clay 
Smith,  W.  S.  Megowan,  A.  C.  Shacklett,  Lewis  W. 
Wolfley,  George  F.  White,  John  W.  Breathitt. 

To  the  camp  at  Calhoun  many  men  came  through  the 


The  Rally  149 

Confederate  lines  in  the  fall  of  1861,  from  the  southern 
part  of  the  State.  Among  them  were  fragments  of  a 
regiment  raised  near  Hopkinsville,  in  sound  of  the  guns 
at  Camp  Boone  over  the  Tennessee  line  during  the 
summer,  by  Colonel  James  F.  Buckner,  a  lawyer  and 
large  land  and  slave  owner,  who  maintained  his  men  in 
camp  for  weeks  at  his  own  expense,  hauling  provisions 
from  his  farm.  He  had  obtained  enough  guns  to  arm  one 
company  only.  The  Confederates  coming  into  the  State 
caused  his  men  to  leave  for  the  camp  at  Calhoun.  They 
were  overtaken  by  Forrest  and  scattered.  The  men 
found  their  way  to  Calhoun,  but  Colonel  Buckner  was 
captured  and  for  a  long  time  held  a  prisoner  in  the  South. 

Greensburg,  on  the  upper  waters  of  Green  River, 
was  a  point  in  some  respects  similar  to  Calhoun.  There 
the  volunteers  concentrated  to  fill  up  the  regiments, 
organizing  under  the  direction  of  Generals  W.  T.  Ward 
and  E.  H.  Hobson,  Colonels  John  H.  Ward,  W.  E. 
Hobson,  and  other  officers. 

A  camp  of  instruction  was  established  at  Bardstown. 
Lebanon  was  also  a  point  of  rendezvous. 

In  this  way  the  forming  regiments  were  kept  well  out 
in  the  State,  and  it  can  be  easily  seen  how  their  camp 
guards  were  the  outposts  of  the  Federal  forces  in  Ken 
tucky  in  the  fall  of  1861.  It  is  not  intended  to  make 
any  detailed  mention  of  these  splendid  regiments  and 
their  resolute  and  courageous  leaders,  but  only  to  show, 
by  a  brief  summary,  that  at  the  time  the  doubt  was 
expressed  about  forming  Union  regiments  in  Kentucky 
many  of  these  were  already  filled,  and  the  others  were 
filling  so  rapidly  that  in  the  month  following  all  were 
completely  organized  and  in  the  field  on  active  duty. 

It  is  not  strange  that  men  who  were  not  fully  advised, 
although  in  high  position,  did  not  grasp  the  fact  that  the 
Kentuckians  were  crowding  into  regimental  organizations 
under  the  most  trying  circumstances.  In  the  midst  of 


15°  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

pressing  duties,  General  Sherman  and  Adjutant-General 
Thomas  fell  into  an  error  as  to  the  real  situation  in 
Kentucky  in  October,  1861,  and  under  the  circumstances 
they  ought  to  be  held  excusable,  especially  as  they 
certainly  did  not  intend  to  do  injustice. 

But  for  historians  to  bring  forward  such  unguarded 
utterances  and  adduce  them  to  sustain  the  unwarranted 
assumption  that  there  was  but  little  military  enthusiasm, 
as  far  as  enlistments  were  concerned,  and  little  patriotic 
ordor  which  led  to  volunteering,  is  without  excuse  in  the 
face  of  the  record  facts  of  the  period.  (Memorial  History 
of  Louisville,  p.  197.) 

Even  the  historian  Shaler,  who  finds  space  to  detail 
what  he  calls  the  hegira  of  Kentucky  people  south  in  the 
summer  and  fall  of  1861,  and  swells  the  number  to  40,000 
at  that  time,  yet  does  the  faint  justice  to  say,  in  a  few 
words,  that  out  of  what  was  left,  Kentucky's  quota  of 
Union  troops  was  always  full.  He  correctly  stated  that  the 
quota  of  Union  troops  was  promptly  raised,  and  he  might 
have  added,  more  troops  were  raised  than  required  by 
the  quota,  but  the  accompanying  statement  that  40,000 
Confederates  had  gone  from  the  State  is  an  error.  Not 
that  many  went  during  the  entire  war.  The  facts  are 
more  correctly  stated  in  Smith's  history  (p.  614):  "In 
a  few  months  it  is  estimated  that  well-nigh  ten  thousand 
Kentuckians  had  gone  to  the  Confederacy.'* 

The  rush  of  volunteers  into  the  service  in  the  summer 
and  fall  of  1861  filled  up  the  regiments  which  served  that 
year,  and  they  continued  in  service  through  the  war, 
being  constantly  recruited  by  fresh  volunteers. 

In  the  eventful  year  of  1862,  the  First  and  Second 
infantry,  which  had  served  in  West  Virginia  in  1861,  were 
brought  back  and  united  with  Buell's  army ;  the  Seven 
teenth  and  Twenty-fifth  were  with  Grant  at  Donelson; 
the  Tenth,  Twelfth,  and  Fourth  Infantry  and  First 
Cavalry  were  at  Mill  Spring  with  General  Thomas.  After 


The  Rally  151 

these  events  Grant's  army  went  up  the  Tennessee  River 
to  the  battle-field  of  Shiloh,  and  thither  General  Buell's 
troops  marched  out  of  Kentucky,  and  from  Nashville. 
At  Shiloh  fourteen  Union  Kentucky  regiments  were 
engaged.  From  Shiloh  some  marched  down  the 
Mississippi  with  Grant,  while  others  marched  with  Buell 
through  Northern  Alabama  and  up  through  Tennessee 
and  Kentucky  to  Louisville,  and  out  to  Perryville,  where 
eight  Kentucky  regiments  were  engaged.  Then  the 
march  was  back  to  Tennessee,  where  thirteen  were 
engaged  at  Murfreesboro.  Nine  participated  in  General 
Burnside's  East  Tennessee  expedition  in  1863.  At  the 
same  time  fifteen  were  with  General  Rosecrans  and 
fought  at  Chickamauga.  In  the  Atlanta  campaign  there 
were  more  than  thirty. 

During  the  summer  of  1862,  when  all  the  central  and 
eastern  portions  of  Kentucky  were  overrun  by  Bragg's 
invasion,  eight  regiments  of  cavalry  and  three  of  infantry 
were  raised.  This  is  a  striking  fact  and  deserves  particular 
mention.  Bragg  had  come,  as  he  stated,  for  the  * '  redemp 
tion  of  Kentucky. ' '  The  Confederate  authorities  had  been 
persuaded  that  the  people  of  Kentucky  were  Southern 
in  sentiment,  and  great  armies  came  in  to  give  oppor 
tunity  fora  grand  uprising  to  throw  off  the  "Northern 
yoke."  The  great  armies  were  fought  by  Kentucky 
troops,  and  retired  from  the  State  with  not  more  than 
two  thousand  five  hundred  recruits,  all  told.  In  the  same 
summer,  eleven  new  Union  regiments  were  filling  up, 
and  in  the  fall  they  were  full.  They  were  as  follows : 

In  the  central  part  of  the  State,  the  Seventh  Cavalry 
under  Colonels  Leonidas  Metcalfe  and  John  Faulkner, 
Lieutenant-Colonels  W.  C.  Oden,  T.  T.  Vimont,  W. 
W.  Bradley,  Majors  Charles  Milward,  W.  O.  Smith, 
Robert  Collier,  A.  S.  Bloom,  Adjutants  John  B.  Camp 
bell,  F.  G.  McCrea,  D.  P.  Watson. 

In  the  western  part  of  the  State,  the  Eighth  Cavalry 


i52  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

under  Colonels  James  M.  Shackelford  and  Benjamin  H. 
Bristow,  Lieutenant-Colonel  J.  M.  Holloway,  Majors  J. 
M.  Kennedy,  J.  W.  Weatherford,  S.  M.  Starling,  Adjut 
ant  J.  E.  Huffman,  Chaplain  George  F.  Pentecost. 

In  the  central  part  of  the  State  the  Ninth  Cavalry, 
Colonel  R.  T.  Jacob,  Lieutenant-Colonel  John  Boyle, 
Majors  J.  T.  Farris,  W.  C.  Moreau,  George  W.  Rue,  J. 
R.  Page,  J.  C.  Brent,  Adjutants  U.  W.  Oldham,  Frank 
H.  Pope,  Surgeon  Dr.  William  Bailey. 

In  the  easterly-middle  part  of  the  State,  the  Tenth 
Cavalry,  Colonels  Joshua  Tevis,  C.  J.  Walker,  Lieu 
tenant-Colonel  R.  R.  Maltby,  Majors  J.  L.  Foley, 
William  A.  Doniphan,  John  Mason  Brown,  J.  M.  Taylor, 

A.  T.    Wood,     Adjutants    Ridgeley    Wilson,     J.     N. 
Wallingford. 

In  the  same  part  of  the  State,  the  Eleventh  Cavalry, 
Colonel  A.  W.  Holman,  Lieutenant-Colonels  W.  E. 
Riley,  A.  J.  Alexander,  Milton  Graham,  Majors  W.  O. 
Boyle,  Duvall  English,  Fred.  Slater,  Surgeon  L.  L. 
Pinkerton,  Adjutants  W.  P.  Pierce,  Harry  Gee. 

In  the  middle-westerly  part  of  the  State,  the  Twelfth 
Cavalry,  under  Colonels  Q.  C.  Shanks  and  Eugene  W. 
Crittenden,  Lientenant-Colonels  A.  W.  Holman,  James 
T.  Bramlette,  Majors  N.  L.  Lightfoot,  W.  R.  Kinney, 
I.  H.  Stout,  Julius  L.  Delfosse,  J.  B.  Harrison,  George 
F.  Barnes,  Adjutants  G.  J.  Blewitt,  Z.  B.  Freeman, 
William  Noland,  T.  E.  Tyler,  Surgeons  E.  L.  Brown,  L. 

B.  Littlepage. 

In  the  easterly  part  of  the  State,  the  Fourteenth 
Cavalry  under  Colonel  H.  C.  Lilly,  Lieutenant-Colonel 
Andrew  Herd,  Majors  J.  W.  Stivers,  Alfred  Smith,  J.  C. 
Eversole,  R.  T.  Williams,  Adjutants  F.  B.  Tucker,  John 
H.  Massie,  Thomas  C.  Reed. 

In  the  westerly  part  of  the  State,  the  Fifteenth  Cavalry 
under  Colonel  Gabriel  Netter,  Lieutenant-Colonel 
A.  P.  Henry,  Major  Wiley  Waller,  Adjutant  John  W. 


The  Rally  153 

Lockhead,  Quartermaster  Thomas  Alexander,  Commis 
sary  P.  H.  Darby. 

In  the  south-central  part  of  the  State,  the  Thirty- 
second  Infantry  under  Colonel  Thomas  Z.  Morrow, 
Major  John  A.  Morrison,  Adjutant  William  J. 
Hume. 

In  the  middle  part  of  the  State,  the  Thirty-third 
Infantry  under  Colonel  J.  F.  Lauck  and  Adjutant 
Dawson. 

In  the  eastern  part  of  the  State,  the  Thirty-ninth 
Infantry  under  Colonels  John  Dills,  David  A.  Mins, 
Lieutenant-Colonel  S.  M.  Ferguson,  Majors  John  B. 
Auxier,  Martin  Thornbury,  Adjutants  L.  J.  Hampton, 
J.  F.  Stewart,  R.  S.  Huey. 

All  these  were  recruited  in  1862. 

Subsequent  to  that  year,  regiments  were  organized  as 
follows : 

In  the  southerly-middle  part  of  the  State,  the  Thirtieth 
Infantry  under  Colonels  F.  N.  Alexander  and  William  B. 
Craddock,  Major  Thomas  Mahoney,  Adjutant  Thomas 
J.  Hardin. 

In  the  western  part  of  the  State,  the  Thirty-fifth 
Infantry  under  Colonel  E.  A.  Starling,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  E.  R.  Weir,  Major  Frank  H.  Bristow,  Adjutant 
Thomas  W.  Wing,  Quartermaster  Finis  H.  Little. 

In  the  central  part  of  the  State,  the  Thirty-seventh 
Infantry  under  Colonels  Charles  S.  Hanson  and  Benjamin 
J.  Spaulding,  Major  Sam  Martin,  Adjutant  Caswell 
Watts,  Quartermaster  W.  O.  Watts,  J.  M.  Mattingly, 
Surgeon  J.  R.  Duncan. 

In  the  northerly-middle  part  of  the  State,  the  Fortieth 
Infantry  under  Colonel  Clinton  J.  True,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  Matthew  Mullins,  Majors  T.  H.  Mannen,  F.  H. 
Bierbower,  Adjutants  E.  C.  Barlow,  J.  B.  True. 

In  the  middle  part  of  the  State,  the  Forty-fifth  Infantry 
under  Colonels  John  Mason  Brown,  Lieutenant-Colonel 


154  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Lewis  M.  Clark,  Majors  N.  A.  Brown,  J.  C.  Henderson, 
Adjutant  James  Seaton. 

In  the  eastern  part  of  the  State,  the  Forty-seventh 
Infantry  under  Colonel  Andrew  H.  Clark,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  A.  C.  Wilson,  Major  Thomas  H.  Barnes, 
Adjutant  G.  A.  Hanaford. 

In  the  westerly  part  of  the  State,  the  Forty-eighth 
Infantry  under  Colonel  Hartwell  T.  Burge,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  W.  W.  Hester,  Major  William  H.  Hoyt, 
Adjutants  J.  W.  Lockhead,  William  Sheeler. 

In  the  easterly  part  of  the  State,  the  Forty-ninth 
Infantry  under  Colonel  John  G.  Eve,  Lieutenant-Colonel 
P.  Stratton,  Major  James  H.  Davidson,  Adjutant  James 
H.  Tinsley. 

In  the  westerly-middle  part  of  the  State,  the  Fifty- 
second  Infantry  under  Colonels  John  H.  Grider,  Lieu 
tenant-Colonel  S.  F.  Johnson,  Major  John  B.  Tyler,  and 
Adjutant  William  H.  Murrell. 

In  the  northerly-central  part  of  the  State,  the  Fifty- 
third  Infantry  under  Colonel  C.  J.  True,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  W.  C.  Johnson,  Major  J.  G.  Francis,  Adjutant 
F.  D.  Tunis. 

In  the  central  part  of  the  State,  the  Fifty-fourth 
Infantry  under  Colonel  H.  M.  Buckley,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  John  G.  Rogers,  Major  John  D.  Russell, 
Adjutant  Ed.  Mitchell. 

In  the  northerly-middle  portion  of  the  State,  the  Fifty- 
fifth  Infantry  under  Colonel  Weden  O'Neal,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  T.  J.  Williams,  Major  Silas  Howe,  Adjutants  J. 
E.  Calvert,  R.  C.  Snead. 

In  the  westerly  part  of  the  State,  the  Seventeenth 
Cavalry,  under  Colonel  S.  F.  Johnson,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  T.  W.  Campbell,  Majors  John  B.  Tyler, 
N.  C.  Lawrence,  T.  J.  Lovelace,  Adjutant  David  R. 
Murray. 

In   addition   to  the  regiments  named  were  the  Bat- 


The  Rally  155 

teries — the  First  Kentucky  Battery,  Captain  Simmonds, 
organized  in  1861;  (Battery  A,  or  Stone's  Battery, 
organized  in  1861,  at  Louisville^  Battery  B,  organized  at 
Camp  Dick  Robinson,  1861 ;  Battery  C,  organized  by 
Captain  John  W.  Neville,  1863;  Battery  E,  organized 
by  Captain  John  J.  Hawes,  1863. 

During  all  the  years  of  the  war,  recruiting  was  con 
stantly  going  on  for  the  depleted  ranks  of  the  regiments 
in  the  field,  and  fragments  of  regiments  were  raised — 
companies  and  battalions  which  would  be  consolidated 
with  other  organizations.  Throughout  the  war  there  was 
no  time  that  Union  men  were  not  enlisting  for  the 
protection  of  the  State  as  well  as  for  the  demands  of  the 
front. 

According  to  the  report  of  the  Adjutant-General, 
Kentucky  furnished  over  75,000  white  soldiers  to  the 
Union  service,  including  the  active  state  guards,  who 
served  under  orders  along  with  the  regularly  enlisted  men 
in  organized  regiments,  only  they  did  not  go  out  of  the 
State. 

When  this  number  is  compared  with  the  actual  number 
in  the  Confederate  service,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  three 
times  as  many.  From  the  war  records  it  is  difficult  to 
discover  how  there  could  have  been  as  many  as  25,000 
Confederates,  all  told,  from  Kentucky.  Shaler  at  first 
stated  that  40,000  went  out  at  once,  in  the  fall  of  1861, 
which  statement  is  manifestly  absurd ;  Smith  putting  the 
number  at  10,000.  Afterwards  Shaler  mentions  the 
whole  number  of  Confederates  as  thirty  or  forty  thou 
sand.  Ed.  Porter  Thompson,  in  the  Introduction  to  his 
History  of  the  "Orphan  Brigade,"  estimates  the  total 
number  to  have  been  near  25,000.  As  the  relative 
numbers  can  be  understood  from  what  is  stated,  and  as 
the  75,000  Union  soldiers  served  everywhere  with  credit, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  why  Shaler,  or  any  other  historian, 
should  place  the  Confederates  in  some  sort  of  halo  of 


156  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

glory  superior  to  the  Union  troops  from  Kentucky.  He 
reaches  the  conclusion  from  a  consideration  of  Morgan's 
Cavalry,  which  he  says  never  exceeded  4000  and  was 
often  less,  and  not  Kentuckians  wholly;  and  the  First 
Confederate  brigade,  or  "Orphan  Brigade"  which, 
perhaps,  never  numbered  more  than  any  average  brigade. 
He  dwells  upon  the  valor  of  these  two  small  commands, 
but  is  oblivious  to  the  splendid  contingent  of  Union 
troops  from  Kentucky,  not  thrown  together  as  a  body, 
but  serving  in  all  the  commands  as  regiments  and 
always  mentioned  in  the  reports  with  credit. 

The  general  officers  furnished  by  the  State  of  Kentucky 
and  under  whom  her  troops  largely  served  were  as  follows : 


Maj.-Gen.  Robert  Anderson,  Brig.-Gen.  Edward  H.  Hobson, 

Maj.-Gen.  William  Nelson,  Brig.-Gen.  James  M.  Shackelford, 

Maj.-Gen.  Thomas  L.  Crittenden,  Brig.-Gen.  Green  Clay  Smith, 

Maj.-Gen.  William  T.  Ward,  Brig.-Gen.  D.  W.  Lindsey, 

Maj.-Gen.  Thomas  J.  Wood,  Brig.-Gen.  W.  E.  Woodruff, 

Maj.-Gen.  Cassius  M.  Clay,  Brig.-Gen.  William  P.  Sanders, 

Maj.-Gen.  S.  B.  Burbridge,  Brig.-Gen.  Eli  Long, 

Maj.-Gen.  Lovell  H.  Rousseau,  Brig.-Gen.  Louis  D.  Watkins, 

Maj.-Gen.  R.  W.  Johnson,  Brig.-Gen.  T.  T.  Garrard, 

Brig.-Gen.  John  T.  Croxton,  Brevet  Brevet  Brig.-Gen.  S.  W.  Price, 

Major-General,  Brevet  Brig.-Gen.  Alex.  M.  Stout, 

Brig.-Gen.  Walter  C.  Whittaker,  Brevet  Brig.-Gen.  Wm.  J.  Landrum, 

Brig.-Gen.  Jerre  T.  Boyle,  Brevet  Brig.-Gen.  E.  H.  Murray, 

Brig.-Gen.  Speed  S.  Fry,  Adj.-Gen.  John  W.  Finnell. 
Brig.-Gen.  James  S.  Jackson, 


The  service  of  these  officers  was  faithful  and  able 
and  in  many  instances  brilliant.  They  were  patriots  both 
to  their  State  and  country.  The  greater  number  led 
troops  at  the  front  and  in  the  great  battles.  Others 
were  mainly  employed  in  protecting  the  State  from  ravage 
and  rapine.  No  Kentuckians  can  be  named  to  whom 
the  people  of  the  State  owe  a  heavier  debt  of  gratitude. 
Yet  we  scarcely  find  them  even  named  in  the  histories  of 


The  Rally  157 

Kentucky.  Some  are  not  mentioned,  and  those  who  are, 
are  censured.  Space  is  found  to  extol  the  services  of 
Confederate  officers  from  Kentucky  and  no  blame  is 
attached  to  any  of  them,  but  the  devoted  and  resolute 
men  who  led  the  Union  troops  from  Kentucky  are  treated 
as  though  they  had  been  offenders. 


CHAPTER  XI 

LOCATION   OF   UNION   SENTIMENT 

IT  might  occur  to  the  casual  observer  that  it  would 
be  natural  to  find  the  sentiment  of  Unionism  in  Ken 
tucky  principally  along  the  northern  border,  and  that 
it  would  be  weaker  in  the  central  and  southern  parts. 
Therefore,as  so  little  has  been  written  to  put  the  Kentucky 
Unionists  in  their  true  light  before  the  country,  it  will  be 
of  interest  to  show  in  what  parts  of  the  State  the  Union 
sentiment  prevailed.  It  has  already  been  shown  in  the 
chapter  on  the  voting  of  1861  that  only  in  the  extreme 
west  end  was  there  a  secession  majority  in  June,  1861. 
The  result  was  the  same  at  the  August  election,  1861. 
The  Union  sentiment  was  neither  confined  to  any  narrow 
limits,  nor  excluded  from  any  sections.  Only  in  the  Con 
gressional  district  in  the  extreme  west  end  was  it  less 
strong  than  secession,  and  even  in  that  district  there  were 
6225  Union  voters  as  against  8988  Southern  Rights 
voters  at  the  Congressional  election  of  June,  1861.  All 
the  other  districts  were  Union  by  large  majorities.  That 
which  was  shown  by  voting  was  confirmed  by  the  enlist 
ment  of  the  Union  soldiers.  The  rally  to  the  flag  was 
from  no  special  section,  but  from  all  parts  of  the  State. 
The  idea  has  been  expressed  that  the  strong  support  of 
the  Union  came  from  the  mountain  districts,  where  there 
were  few  slaveholders,  and  not  from  the  slave-holding 
sections.  Such  an  idea  is  emphatically  wrong.  It  would 
not  have  been  possible  for  the  east  end  of  the  State  to  have 

158 


Location  of  Union  Sentiment          159 

furnished  anything  like  enough  troops  to  fill  the  quota 
assigned  to  the  State.  The  quotas  were  more  than  filled 
by  enlistments  in  large  numbers  in  all  the  districts, 
precisely  as  the  Union  sentiment  was  shown  by  the  results 
of  the  elections. 

The  idea  has  also  been  expressed  that  the  fertile  and 
wealthy  part  of  Kentucky  known  as  the  Blue  Grass  region 
furnished  Confederate  soldiers,  while  the  Union  soldiers 
were  from  the  less  favored  sections.  The  historian  Shaler 
is  imbued  with  this  idea.  He  says: 

"The  Confederacy  received  the  youth  and  strength  from 
the  richest  part  of  the  Kentucky  soil.  The  so-called  Blue 
Grass  soil  sent  the  greater  part  of  its  men  of  the  richer  families 
into  the  Confederate  army,  while  the  Union  troops,  though 
from  all  parts  of  the  State,  came  in  greatest  abundance  from 
those  who  dwelt  on  thinner  soils." 

He  then  adds  that  the  Confederate  troops  were  finer 
than  the  Union,  being  from  the  richer  parts  of  the  State. 

(p.  3/4.) 

This  assumption  can  be  better  understood  when  con 
sidered  in  connection  with  Shaler's  extraordinary  state 
ments  as  to  the  numbers  of  the  Confederate  troops 
mentioned  elsewhere  in  this  work. 

The  Blue  Grass  region  of  Kentucky  was  Union  in 
sentiment  by  a  large  majority,  and  furnished  many  more 
Union  than  Confederate  soldiers.  The  division  of  senti 
ment  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  in  the  chief  city  of  the 
Blue  Grass  region,  Lexington,  there  were  three  military 
companies  before  and  at  the  time  the  war  came  on,  and 
two  of  these  adhered  to  the  Union,  while  one  went 
South. 

It  would  have  been  singular  if  the  Congressional 
district  which  voted  more  than  2500  Union  majority  in 
June,  1861,  and  in  August,  1861,  should  have  sent  its 
fighting  men  to  the  Confederacy,  nor  did  it,  in  fact.  It 


160  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

appears  from  the  report  of  the  Adjutant-General  that 
twenty  Union  regiments  were  organized  in  that  portion  of 
the  State  usually  denominated  the  Blue  Grass.  This 
would  make  about  one  fourth  of  all  the  Union  troops 
furnished  by  the  State.  From  the  best  information 
obtainable,  it  appears  that  from  ten  counties,  all  being 
"Blue  Grass/'  there  were  enlisted 8500  Union  soldiers,  as 
follows :  Jessamine,  seven  companies ;  Woodford,  seven  ; 
Bourbon,  ten;  Fayette,  eleven;  Franklin,  eight;  Clark, 
nine;  Scott,  seven;  Harrison,  eight ;  Mercer,  ten  ;  Boyle, 
eight.  There  being  one  hundred  and  ten  counties  in  the 
State,  if  the  others  responded  equal  to  these,  there  would 
have  been  nearly  100,000  soldiers  from  the  State.  True, 
some  counties  were  thinly  populated,  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  there  were  many  more  populous  than  these  ten. 

We  may  take  ten  other  counties  with  a  similar  result : 
Montgomery,  seven  companies ;  Bath,  eight ;  Mason,  ten  ; 
Fleming,  seven;  Pendleton,  seven;  Madison,  ten;  Ken- 
ton,  fourteen;  Campbell,  twelve;  Bracken,  six;  Grant, 
six;  making  a  total  of  eighty-six  companies. 

All  the  companies  mentioned  were  in  the  regular  mili 
tary  organizations.  There  were,  besides,  numerous 
Home  Guard  companies,  which,  as  has  been  shown, 
served  with  the  regular  troops,  and  were  as  effective  for 
service  as  any  others. 

There  are  no  grounds  for  the  statement  that  the  Con 
federacy  received  its  strength  from  the  richest  parts  of 
Kentucky  soil,  and  that  the  Union  troops  were  from  the 
thinner  soils.  Nor  are  there  any  grounds  for  saying  the 
greater  part  of  the  men  from  the  richer  families  went  into 
the  Confederate  army.  Such  statements  are  nothing  but 
assumption.  The  division  of  Kentucky  troops  was  in  no 
way  unlike  the  division  of  sentiment  shown  by  the  voting. 
Every  part  of  the  State  was  Union  in  sentiment,  except 
the  extreme  west  end,  and  it  was  from  all  the  other 
portions  of  the  State  where  Union  sentiment  prevailed, 


Location  of  Union  Sentiment         161 

including  the  Blue  Grass,  that  the  main  body  of  the  Union 
troops  came. 

The  Blue  Grass  section,  which  is  the  richest  part  of 
Kentucky,  comprises,  strictly  speaking,  nearly  twenty 
counties,  of  which  Fayette,  with  its  capital  Lexington,  is 
about  the  centre.  In  these  counties  the  predominance  of 
Union  sentiment  was  shown  in  the  Congressional  election 
of  June,  1861,  and  in  the  August  election  of  1861,  and  in 
this  general  section  of  the  State,  it  is  shown  by  examina 
tion  of  the  Adjutant-General's  report  that  as  many 
Union  volunteers  enlisted  as  went  to  the  Confederacy,  all 
told,  from  the  entire  State.  Lexington,  Frankfort,  and 
Covington  were  Union  cities;  also  such  towns  as  Dan 
ville,  Paris,  Versailles,  Nicholasville,  Georgetown,  Rich 
mond.  Many  of  the  most  distinguished  Union  leaders 
were  from  these  places — the  Crittendens,  Breckinridges, 
Marshalls,  Robinsons,  Goodloes,  Smiths,  Clays,  Buck- 
ners,  Harlans,  Lindseys,  Bell,  Fry,  Dudley,  Huston, 
Davis,  Combs,  Burnams,  Kinkeads,  Williams,  Prall,  Tem 
ple,  Dunlap,  and  many  others.  The  division  of  sentiment 
was  no  more  marked  in  the  Blue  Grass  than  anywhere  else. 

Nothing  is  more  familiar  to  Kentuckians  than  the 
division  of  families,  and  this  division  was  in  like  propor 
tion  with  the  division  shown  by  the  voting. 

The  following  statement  furnished  by  Colonel  R.  M. 
Kelly,  who  was  Colonel  of  the  Fourth  Kentucky  Infantry, 
and  a  well-known  citizen  of  Louisville,  illustrates  the 
division  of  families.  He  says : 

"  My  father,  who  was  cashier  and  manager  of  the  branch  of 
the  Northern  Bank  of  Kentucky  at  Paris,  Bourbon  County, 
lived  on  a  place  of  some  fifteen  acres.  On  the  east  and 
adjoining  was  the  place  of  his  step-brother,  Charles  Brent, 
and  on  the  west  was  another  step-brother,  Hugh  Brent.  Both 
the  Brents  were  men  of  means  and  leading  citizens.  On  the 
other  side  of  the  town  resided  Garrett  Davis,  my  uncle  by 
marriage,  who  had  two  sons,  my  cousins.  I  and  four  of  my 
ii 


162  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

brothers  went  into  the  Union  army;  Hugh  Brent,  son  of 
Charles,  was  a  captain  of  a  Home  Guard  company,  in  which 
was  my  brother-in-law.  His  two  next  sons  went  into  the 
Union  army.  The  three  sons  of  Hugh  Brent  went  into  the 
Rebel  army.  Garrett  Davis's  oldest  son  went  to  the  Ken 
tucky  Legislature  as  a  Union  representative  from  Bourbon, 
One  of  my  cousins  went  into  the  Rebel  army  and  one  into 
the  Union  army." 
He  further  says : 

"  John  S.  Williams  (who  became  a  Confederate  general)  was 
living  in  Illinois  when  the  war  came  on.  His  older  brother 
Richard  was  living  in  Texas.  Their  father,  General  Sam 
Williams,  two  of  whose  brothers  married  sisters  of  my  mother, 
was  a  strong  Union  man.  His  third  son,  Clay,  went  into 
the  Union  army.  John  S.  went  into  the  Rebel  army.  His 
brother  Richard  made  his  way  under  difficulties,  from  Texas, 
and  entered  the  Union  service.  Two  sons  of  an  uncle  of 
John  S.  Williams  were  officers  in  my  regiment.  His  other  son 
was  a  strong  Unionist,  as  was  the  father,  and  as  was  the 
other  brother  who  married  my  aunt."» 

He  further  says: 

"  When  my  regiment,  the  4th  Kentucky  Infantry,  was  be 
fore  Mission  Ridge,  it  was  in  full  view  of  the  4th  Kentucky 
Rebel  Infantry,  in  which  were  two  brothers  of  two  men  of  my 
regiment.  This  sort  of  division  was  common." 

This  division  was  so  common  it  is  well  understood  by 
all  intelligent  people  in  Kentucky.  The  Breckinridge 
family  was  divided ;  also,  the  Marshalls,  the  Buckners, 
the  Bufords,  the  Crittendens,  the  Clays,  the  Hansons, 
and  many  others.  Where  there  was  no  division,  it  was 
because  all  were  Union,  and  the  divisions  generally  were 
in  the  same  proportion  as  that  of  the  sentiment  of  the 
State. 

The  city  of  Louisville  was  the  metropolis  of  the  State. 
In  the  war  time  its  population  was  60,000.  At  that 
time  the  railroad  had  not  superseded  the  river  as  a  means 


Location  of  Union  Sentiment         163 

of  transportation,  and  the  southern  trade  was  largely 
carried  on  by  steamboat.  Along  the  turnpike  roads  which 
led  to  Louisville  the  produce  of  the  country  was  hauled 
in  wagons  or  driven  on  foot,  and  the  outlet  of  trade  was 
down  the  river,  Business  connections  with  the  South 
centred  in  Louisville.  Its  citizens  were  slaveholders, 
and  long  intercourse  with  the  Southern  country  had 
established  many  social  ties  and  relations.  But  Louis 
ville  was  a  Union  stronghold.  It  is  surprising,  when  the 
facts  are  considered,  with  what  almost  unanimity  this 
Southern  city  adhered  to  the  Union  and  repudiated 
secession.  The  sentiment  of  her  people  was  shown  both 
by  voting  and  by  the  enlistment  of  soldiers. 

On  the  6th  day  of  May,  1861,  an  election  took  place 
for  mayor.  Two  candidates  were  in  the  field — John 

M.  Delph,  the  Union  candidate,  and Devan,  the 

Southern  Rights  candidate.  The  only  issue  was  union  or 
secession.  The  total  vote  cast  in  the  city  was  6393.  Of 
these  Delph  received  4822,  and  Devan  1571. 

The  August  election  in  Kentucky  took  place  two 
weeks  after  the  battle  of  Bull  Run.  The  war  was  fully 
inaugurated  at  that  time,  but  there  were  no  soldiers 
in  Kentucky.  Therefore  it  cannot  be  said  that  elections 
were  interfered  with  by  the  military  authorities.  The 
election  in  August  was  as  fair  and  free  as  the  one  in  May, 
or  any  other  ever  held  in  the  State  in  any  year  prior  to 
the  war  or  since. 

It  has  been  already  shown  that  at  this  election  the 
Union  candidates  were  elected  all  over  the  State,  and  the 
total  majority  in  the  State  was  nearly  60,000.  This 
enormous  majority  can  not  be  fully  appreciated  without 
recalling  that  the  total  vote  of  the  State  was  less 
than  150,000,  as  shown  by  the  vote  for  President  in 
1860.  At  this  August  election  of  1861  the  voting 
in  the  city  of  Louisville  is  shown  by  the  following 
table : 


164  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

For  James  Speed,  Union  candidate  for  State  Senate  . .  4788 

For  his  opponent,  Jefferson  Brown 605 

For  A.  B.  Semple,  Union  candidate  for  State  Senate. .  4615 

For  his  opponent,  Gamble 902 

For  the  lower  House,  Beeman,  Union 2141 

His  opponent,  Brinly 63 

Nat  Wolfe,  Union 1680 

His  opponent,  James  Rudd. , 321 

W.  P.  Boone,  Union I99° 

His  opponent,  Joyce 351 

Joshua  Tevis,  Union 958 

His  opponent,  Johnston t 305 

There  is  but  one  conclusion :  the  city  of  Louisville 
was  overwhelmingly  for  the  Union.  The  people  of  all 
classes,  wealthy,  influential,  business  and  professional, 
and  laboring  men,  seemed  to  be  animated  by  the  same 
spirit,  that  of  devotion  to  the  Union.  Under  no  other 
circumstances  could  there  possibly  have  been  such  a  show 
ing  at  the  polls. 

The  sentiment  of  the  people  was  manifested  in  many 
ways.  Both  boards  of  the  City  Council  were  almost 
unanimously  Union.  This  was  shown  in  April,  1861, 
when  a  resolution  was  offered  to  the  effect  that  the  true 
position  of  Kentucky  was  with  the  South,  which  resolu 
tion  received  but  two  votes.  In  the  same  month  $50,000 
was  appropriated  for  the  defence  of  the  city.  In  May  the 
mayor  reported  the  names  of  eighteen  companies  which 
had  been  organized  for  the  city's  defence.  These  com 
panies  were  formed  in  April  and  May,  and  it  will  be  seen 
that  they  did  actual  and  effective  service  in  resisting  the 
advance  of  Confederate  forces  in  the  ensuing  fall. 

The  organization  of  these  companies  was  materially 
aided  by  an  association,  purely  spontaneous,  among  the 
citizens,  known  as  the  "Union  Club."  This  association 
was  born  of  the  necessities  of  the  hour,  and  was  extremely 
useful  in  acquainting  the  Union  men  with  each  other,  and 


Location  of  Union  Sentiment         165 

in  steadying  public  sentiment.  At  first,  men  were  uncer 
tain  how  others  stood.  There  was  much  angry  and 
defiant  talk,  and  the  organization  of  the  Knights  of 
the  Golden  Circle  emboldened  the  secessionists.  The 
"  Union  Club"  then  naturally  came  into  existence.  The 
beginning  was  small,  but  it  rapidly  grew  until  more  than 
6000  were  enrolled.  The  questions  asked  of  those  who 
were  recommended  for  membership  were  very  significant : 

Are  you  opposed  to  secession  or  disunion? 

Do  you  acknowledge  your  highest  allegiance  is  due  to 
the  United  States? 

Do  you  pledge  yourself  to  resist  all  attempts  to  over 
throw  the  government  of  the  United  States? 

Do  you  pledge  your  aid  and  sympathy  in  suppressing 
the  present  rebellion? 

An  oath  was  then  taken  to  defend  the  government  of 
the  United  States. 

The  initiated  were  then  admonished  to  do  all  in  their 
power  to  maintain  the  Union,  enjoining  them  to  re 
member  the  words  of  our  own  immortal  Clay : 

"If  Kentucky  to-morrow  unfurls  the  banner  of  resist 
ance  I  will  never  fight  under  that  banner.  I  owe  a  para 
mount  allegiance  to  the  whole  Union, — a  subordinate 
one  to  my  own  State."  1 

The  military  companies  which  were  formed  were 
regularly  organized  as  the  Louisville  Home  Guard.  The 
first  commander  was  Lovell  H.  Rousseau.  He  resigned 
on  the  loth  of  July  in  order  to  organize  troops  at  Camp 
Joe  Holt,  across  the  river.  His  successor  was  James 
Speed,  afterwards  United  States  Attorney-General  in 
Mr.  Lincoln's  Cabinet.  He  served  until  September  2d, 
when  he  took  his  seat  in  the  State  Senate.  He  was 
succeeded  by  Hon.  Hamilton  Pope.  From  the  beginning, 
the  Major  of  the  organization  was  John  W.  Barr,  late 
United  States  Judge,  Kentucky  District,  who  also  acted 

1  See  Appendix,  §  13,  p.  348. 


166  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

as  Adjutant.  The  active  service  of  this  body  of  men  was 
soon  required.  On  the  i/th  of  September  the  Confede 
rates  who  had  come  into  the  State  made  their  way  up  the 
Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad,  and  Louisville  was 
threatened.  Major  Anderson  was  in  Louisville,  but  no 
troops.  He  applied  to  General  Hamilton  Pope,  who  told 
him  he  could  summon  fifteen  hundred  men  at  the  sound 
of  the  fire  bell.  This  was  done.  The  whole  body  volun 
teered  to  advance  to  Muldraugh  Hill.  Just  at  that  time 
General  Sherman  arrived  in  the  city.  He  went  out  with 
the  Home  Guards.  At  the  depot  they  were  joined  by 
General  Rousseau,  who  brought  2000  men  from  Camp  Joe 
Holt.  Thus  Louisville  was  defended  by  Louisville  men, 
in  number  more  than  three  thousand. 

It  is  due  to  these  early  defenders  of  Louisville  to  record 
the  names  of  the  companies  and  their  officers : 

The  Calhoun  Artillery,  Captain  Calhoun ;  Anderson 
Guards,  Captain  Theodore  Harris,  and  Lieutenants  W.  F. 
Wood  and  A.  N.  Keigivin;  Gill  Rifles,  Captain  Ed.  St. 
John,  Lieutenants  Jno.  F.  Ditsler,  J.  C.  Russell;  Tomp- 
kins  Zouaves,  Captain  Robert  Miller,  Lieutenants  C.  A. 
Gruber,  C.  A.  Summerville ;  Avery  Guards,  Captain  S.  L. 
Adair,  Lieutenant  Peter  Leaf;  Battle  Creek  Guards, 
Captain  B.  F.  Lutz,  Lieutenant  A.  Lutz;  Marion  Rifles, 
Captain  C.  F.  Duke,  Lieutenants  John  Hughes,  James 
Barbee;  Louisville  Guards,  Captain  Fred.  Buckner, 
Lieutenant  A.  Ringwald;  Jefferson  Guards,  Captain  J. 
F.  Huber,  Lieutenants  D.  W.  Henderson,  Ed  Merkly; 
National  Guards,  Captain  A.  C.  Semple,  Lieutenants 
E.G.  Wigginton,  J.  M.  Semple;  Prentice  Guards,  Captain 
El.  Shepherd ;  Island  Home  Guards,  Captain  W.  L.  Tuell, 
Lieutenants  M.  M.  Rhorer,  A.  J.  Wells;  Boone  Guards, 
Captain  Paul  Byerly,  Lieutenants  James  Fogarty,  J.R. 
Boone;  Halbert  Zouaves,  Captain  W.  H.  Meglemery, 
Lieutenants  H.  J.  Smith,  A.  Rush;  Hamilton  Guards, 
Captain  F.  M.  Hughes,  Lieutenants  G.  W.  Conway,  D. 


Location  of  Union  Sentiment          167 

Abbott;  Dent  Guards,  Captain  Jesse  Rubel,  Lieutenants 
J.  R.  White,  W.  H.  Pagan;  Sumpter  Grays,  Captain  J.  H. 
Bornom;  Semple  Battery,  Captain  J.  B.  Watkins;  First 
Ward  Guards,  Major  A.  Y.  Johnson,  Captain  J.  D. 
Orvill,  Lieutenant  Ed.  Young;  Delph  Guards,  Captain 
John  Daley,  Lieutenant  Thomas  Tindall ;  Captain  Miller's 
Company,  Captain  Irwin  Miller;  Crittenden  Union 
Zouaves,  Captain  John  M.  Harlan,  now  Justice  U.  S. 
Supreme  Court;  Villiar  Guards,  Captain  Joseph  Have- 
man,  Lieutenant  K.  Weaver;  Dupont  Zouaves,  Captain 
J.  K.  Noble,  Lieutenant  William  Krull;  East  Louisville 
Guards,  Captain  David  Hooker,  Lieutenants  William 
McNeal,  John  Collins;  Thruston  Guards,  Captain  Jesse 
Harmon,  Lieutenants  John  Ewald,  Fred  Van  Seggern; 
Franklin  Guards,  Captain  William  Elwang,  Lieutenants 
P.  Emge,  H.  Canning;  Second  Ward  Rangers,  Lieu 
tenants  Charles  Summers,  E.  D.  Prewitt.  Many  of  these 
men  entered  the  service  regularly. 

The  city  of  Louisville  and  immediate  vicinity  furnished 
the  principal  part  of  seven  regiments  for  the  Union 
cause : 

The  Fifth  Kentucky  Infantry,  officered  by  Lovell  H. 
Rousseau,  H.  M.  Buckley,  W.  W.  Berry,  Charles  H. 
Thomasson  and  others; 

The  Sixth  Kentucky  Infantry,  officered  by  Walter  C. 
Whittaker,  George  T.  Shackelford,  George  T.  Cotton, 
and  others; 

The  Fifteenth  Kentucky  Infantry,  officered  by  Curran 
Pope,  James  B.  Forman,  Marion  C.  Taylor,  George  P. 
Jouett,  Noah  Cartwright, William  P.Campbell,  and  others ; 

The  Twenty-eighth  Kentucky  Infantry,  officered  by 
William  P.  Boone,  J.  Rowan  Boone,  A.  Y.  Johnson,  John 
Gault,  and  others; 

The  Thirty-fourth  Kentucky  Infantry,  officered  by 
Henry  Dent,  Selby  Harney,  W.  Y.  Dillard,  Joseph  B. 
Watkins,  and  others ; 


1 68  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

The  Second  Kentucky  Cavalry,  officered  by  Buckner 
Board,  Thomas  P.  Nicholas,  Thomas  B.  Cochran,  Elijah 
S.  Watts,  W.  H.  Eifort,  Owen  Starr,  and  others; 

The  Fourth  Kentucky  Cavalry,  officered  by  Jesse 
Bayles,  Green  Clay  Smith,  Wickliffe  Cooper,  Jacob 
Ruckstuhl,  and  others. 

While  all  comprising  these  regiments  were  not  from 
Louisville,  yet  many  Louisville  men  were  in  other  regi 
ments,  thus  making  a  fair  offset. 

The  city  government  was  so  decidedly  in  favor  of  the 
Union  as  to  attract  mention  in  the  Eastern  papers.  Its 
expressions  were  numerous  and  unequivocal.  In  July  it 
took  steps  to  prevent  persons  from  inducing  minors  to  go 
off  to  the  Confederacy.  In  August  it  passed  a  resolution 
congratulating  Colonel  W.  E.  Woodruff  of  the  Second 
Kentucky  Infantry  upon  his  exchange,  he  having  been 
taken  prisoner  in  Virginia,  welcoming  him  back  and 
rejoicing  that  he  could  further  defend  the  cause  of  the 
Union.  At  the  same  time  it  appropriated  $200,000  to 
be  used  in  encouraging  volunteers.  When  it  was  an 
nounced  that  General  Robert  Anderson  would  come  to 
Louisville  the  Council  voted  to  welcome  him  and  give  him 
the  hospitalities  of  the  city.  In  November  it  adopted  unan 
imously  a  testimonial  to  Lieutenant-Colonel  William  P. 
Campbell,  who  had  left  the  Council  to  serve  in  Colonel 
Curran  Pope's  Fifteenth  Kentucky  Infantry,  saying 
"that  while  the  city  has  lost  an  able  and  efficient  legisla 
tor,  our  country  has  gained  the  service  of  a  true  soldier, 
and  loyal  and  devoted  man,  whose  voice  and  right  arm 
will  ever  be  raised  in  defence  of  American  liberty  and  the 
preservation  of  our  glorious  Union." 

In  January,  1862,  a  similar  resolution  was  adopted  as  to 
Colonel  A.  Y.  Johnson,  who  left  the  city  for  service  in 
the  field,  "in  which  he  can  render  more  valuable  service 
to  his  country." 

The  two  leading  newspapers  of  Louisville,  the  Journal, 


Location  of  Union  Sentiment          169 

George  D.  Prentice,  editor,  and  the  Democrat,  John  H. 
Harney,  editor,  warmly  espoused  the  cause  of  the  Union. 
As  the  files  are  now  examined,  they  are  found  to  con 
tain  strong  and  earnest  editorial  matter  and  communica 
tions  from  the  chief  men  of  the  State,  as  well  as  stirring 
speeches,  all  urging  the  duty  of  supporting  the  Union 
against  the  effort  to  dismember  it. 

In  these  papers  is  mention  of  incidents  and  occurrences 
which  show  the  enthusiasm  of  the  city  of  Louisville  for 
the  Union  cause.  All  through  the  spring  and  summer 
the  patriotic  citizens  showed  their  faith  by  raising  the 
national  flag.  Every  day  there  were  notices  of  flag 
raisings  in  different  parts  of  the  city,  at  which  speeches 
were  made  by  the  leading  citizens.  So  numerously  were 
the  National  colors  displayed,  waving  from  lofty  poles  or 
suspended  across  the  streets,  the  Louisville  Democrat  said 
Louisville  had  become  as  the  "City  of  Flags." 

In  fact,  the  city  was  ablaze  with  Union  sentiment.  As 
the  regiments  of  troops  passed  through  the  streets  on  their 
way  to  the  front  it  came  to  be  a  custom  for  refreshments 
to  be  served  to  them,  and  in  the  loyal  households  the 
patriotic  women  had  provided  plates  and  cups  for  the 
purpose  of  serving  provisions  and  coffee  prepared  for  the 
passing  soldiers. 

Organizations  were  made  for  attending  hospitals  to  care 
for  the  sick  and  wounded.  Fairs  were  held  to  raise 
money.  Committees  were  active  everywhere,  for  the  task 
grew  to  be  one  of  immense  magnitude.  The  citizens  who 
could  not  serve  in  the  field,  and  the  true-hearted  women, 
all  through  the  war,  nobly  upheld  the  reputation  of  the 
city  as  a  stronghold  of  the  Union  cause  in  Kentucky. 

Although  the  extreme  west  end  of  the  State  gave  a 
majority  at  the  polls  for  the  Southern  cause,  many 
volunteered  from  that  section  and  went  into  the  organiza 
tions  formed  elsewhere.  R.  K.  Williams,  Thomas  B. 
Waller,  and  Colonel  A.  P.  Henry  raised  troops  in  the 


1 70  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

western  counties,  some  of  which  were  incorporated  in  the 
Twentieth  Kentucky  Infantry,  and  other  regiments.  It 
would  be  difficult,  nor  would  it  be  in  accordance  with  the 
plan  of  this  book,  to  locate  all  the  volunteers  from  this  or 
any  other  district.  It  will  suffice  to  say  that  the  6000 
voters  of  the  first  district  were  represented  in  the  field 
by  their  full  share  of  volunteers. 

The  second  Congressional  district,  which  adjoins  the 
first,  and  was  composed  of  counties  from  the  Ohio  River 
to  the  Tennessee  line,  was  decidedly  Union  in  sentiment. 
It  elected  James  S.  Jackson,  of  Hopkinsville,  to  Congress 
in  June,  1861,  he  receiving  9271  votes,  and  his  opponent 
3368. 

Enlisting  in  this  district  was  in  accordance  with  the 
voting.  It  has  been  already  shown  that  many  regiments 
were  recruited  in  this  part  of  the  State.  Among  the 
notably  Union  counties  of  the  district  were  Christian, 
Hopkins,  McLean,  Muhlenburg,  and  Ohio.  The  county 
of  Christian  particularly  calls  for  special  mention  as  a 
Union  stronghold.  It  was  said  to  be  the  second  largest 
slave-holding  county  in  the  State.  Its  land  was  fertile 
and  its  people  wealthy.  It  bordered  on  the  Tennessee 
line,  and  might  have  been  supposed  to  have  Southern 
sentiment.  But  such  was  not  the  case.  Its  county-seat 
was  the  fine  old  town  of  Hopkinsville,  located  in  sound 
of  the  cannon  at  Camp  Boone  in  Tennessee,  and  within 
hearing  of  the  roar  of  the  guns  at  Donelson.  It  was  the 
home  of  James  S.  Jackson,  who  resigned  his  seat  in  Con 
gress  in  August,  1861,  to  raise  troops  to  suppress  the 
rebellion.  His  call  as  published  was  that  he  would  raise 
a  cavalry  regiment  for  three  years  or  during  the  war,  to 
consist  often  companies:  "none  but  active,  vigorous  men 
and  men  of  steady  habits  will  be  received.  I  intend  to 
make  this  regiment  in  all  respects  equal  to  the  best 
drilled  and  disciplined  corps  in  the  regular  army."  Many 
of  his  recruits  were  from  Christian  County,  and  the  regi- 


Location  of  Union  Sentiment         171 

ment  fulfilled  the  promise.  At  first  under  Colonel  Jack 
son  and  afterwards  under  Colonel  E.  H.  Murray,  it  did 
service  with  the  great  armies  in  all  the  great  campaigns  of 
the  West,  and  wound  up  its  career  at  the  close  of  the  war 
in  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  where  it  had  gone  through 
to  the  sea  with  Sherman's  army. 

Hopkinsville  was  noted  for  its  large  number  of  strong 
Union  men,  whose  influence  had  much  to  do  with  the 
remarkable  Union  sentiment  which  prevailed  in  that  part 
of  the  State.  Among  them  was  Colonel  James  F.  Buck- 
ner,  who,  as  has  been  related,  raised  a  regiment  in  the 
summer  of  1861,  but  which  was  dispersed  before  it  was 
armed,  the  men  making  their  way  to  Calhoun,  on  Green 
River,  where  they  entered  other  organizations.  General 
Jackson  has  been  mentioned.  It  was  also  the  home  of 
General  Benjamin  H.  Bristow,  who,  in  the  summer  of 
1861,  in  conjunction  with  Colonel  (afterwards  General) 
James  S.  Shackelford,  raised  the  Twenty-fifth  Kentucky 
Infantry,  and  led  it  at  Fort  Donelson  and  on  the  field  of 
Shiloh,  and  afterward  assisted  in  raising  the  Eighth 
Kentucky  Cavalry,  which  he  led  in  the  pursuit  of  Morgan, 
and  who,  after  the  war,  attained  national  distinction  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Also  may  be  mentioned  Colo 
nel  Sam  M.  Starling,  who  served  on  the  staff  of  General 
Crittenden  and  also  with  the  Eighth  Kentucky  Cavalry; 
also,  Colonel  Edmund  Starling,  who  raised  and  led  the 
Thirty-fifth  Kentucky  Mounted  Infantry;  also,  Major 
John  Breathitt,  Captains  William  T.  Buckner,  and  John 
Feland,  of  the  Third  Kentucky  Cavalry ;  also  Lewis  Buck 
ner,  Walter  Evans,  D.  M.  Claggett,  William  A.  Sasseen, 
Ned  Campbell,  Fielding  M.  Starling,  William  Poindexter, 
all  of  whom  were  officers  in  Kentucky  regiments. 

Among  the  prominent  citizens  who  were  strong 
Unionists  were  A.  V.  Long,  Gabriel  Long,  William 
Starling,  Newton  Payne,  B.  T.  Underwood,  Joab  Clark, 
Dr.  D.  J.  Gish,  Dr.  A.  B.  Weber, Davenport, 


1 72  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

General  D.  S.  Hays,  E.  S.  Edmunds,  Ben  S.  Camp 
bell,  Elder  Enos  Campbell,  Judge  H.  R.  Littell,  Colonel 
C.  M.  Collins,  Rev.  H.  V.  D.  Nevius,  Dr.  E.  R.  Cook, 
J.  I.  Landis,  all  oi  whom  were  men  of  the  first  order  in 
the  community  where  they  lived. 

The  Union  soldiers  who  were  at  any  time  located  for 
a  time  at  this  fine  old  Kentucky  town  cherished  ever  after, 
wards  the  recollection  of  the  cordial  reception  they 
received  and  the  abundant  hospitality  and  delightful 
entertainment  extended  to  them.  The  writer's  own 
experience  enables  him  to  testify,  and  to  repeat  the  testi 
mony  of  others,  that,  for  genuine,  hearty,  intelligent,  and 
abiding  loyalty  to  the  Union  cause,  Hopkinsville  was  not 
surpassed  by  any  town  in  the  State.  While  there  was 
some  division  of  sentiment,  devotion  to  the  Union  was 
most  decidedly  the  prevailing  feeling  of  the  town  as  well 
as  of  the  adjacent  country. 

There  was  a  similarity  between  the  cities  of  Hopkins 
ville  and  Bowling  Green  in  respect  to  Union  sentiment; 
and  while  it  is  a  record  fact  that  General  Albert  Sidney 
Johnston  reported  Bowling  Green  to  be  a  Union  centre, 
so  it  is  a  fact  that  when  the  Confederates  first  entered 
Kentucky,  and  were  established  at  Hopkinsville,  the 
officers  expressed  their  surprise  to  find  a  Union  sentiment 
prevalent  among  the  people,  saying  they  had  come  to 
Kentucky  because  they  had  understood  the  people  were 
with  the  South.  This  expression  corresponds  with  the 
words  of  General  Bragg  in  his  report  after  his  invasion  of 
Kentucky  in  1862:  "The  campaign  here  was  predicated 
on  the  belief  and  the  most  positive  assurances  that  the 
people  of  this  country  would  rise  to  assert  their 
independence. 

Nor  did  General  Albert  Sidney  Johnston  have  any 
different  experience  when  he  reacned  Bowling  Green. 
On  the  22d  of  October,  1861,  he  wrote  to  the  Confederate 
authorities  at  Richmond  as  follows : 


Location  of  Union  Sentiment         1 73 

"We  have  received  but  little  accession  to  our  ranks  since 
the  Confederate  forces  crossed  the  line  [i.e.,  the  line  dividing 
Tennessee  and  Kentucky].  In  fact,  no  such  demonstrations 
of  enthusiasm  as  to  justify  any  movement  not  warranted  by 
our  ability  to  maintain  our  own  communication.  It  is  true 
that  I  am  writing  from  a  Union  county,  and  it  is  said  to  be 
different  in  other  counties.  They  appear  to  me  to  be  passive 
if  not  apathetic.  There  are  hundreds  of  ardent  friends  of  the 
South  in  the  State,  but  there  is  apparently  among  them  no 
concert  of  action.  I  shall,  however,  still  hope  that  the  love 
and  spirit  of  liberty  are  not  yet  extinct  in  Kentucky."  (Life 
of  Albert  S.  Johnston,  by  Wm.  P.  Johnston,  p.  351.) 

Bowling  Green  was  a  Union  centre.  It  is  the  principal 
city  in  the  *' Green  River  country." 

Green  River  takes  its  rise  in  the  country  southeast- 
wardly  of  Lebanon,  in  the  counties  of  Lincoln,  Casey,  and 
Adair,  and  flows  westwardly  through  the  State,  entering 
the  Ohio  near  Henderson.  The  upper  half  of  its  course 
is  some  thirty  miles  south  of  the  escarpment  known  as 
the  "Muldraugh  Hill  Range."  With  its  principal  trib 
utary,  the  Big  Barren,  this  stream  drains  the  counties  of 
Casey,  Adair,  Metcalfe,  Barren,  Warren,  Green,  Larue, 
Hart,  Edmondson,  Grayson,  Butler,  Ohio,  Muhlenburg, 
McLean,  and  parts  of  others. 

All  of  these  counties  were  Union  in  sentiment.  They 
constituted,  to  a  large  extent,  the  third  and  fourth 
Congressional  districts,  and  at  the  Congressional  election 
in  June,  1861,  the  third  district  gave  to  the  Union  candi 
date,  Henry  Grider,  10,392  votes,  and  to  his  opponent, 
Joseph  H.  Lewis,  3113,  making  a  Union  majority  of 
7279,  or  more  than  three  to  one.  At  the  same  election 
in  the  fourth  district  the  Union  candidate,  Aaron  Hard 
ing,  received  10,344  votes,  and  his  opponent,  A.  G. 
Talbott,  2469—3  majority  of  7875,  or  nearly  five  to  one. 

The  Green  River  country  furnished  soldiers  to  the 
Union  cause  commensurate  with  its  vote.  Many  went 


174  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

into  the  Third,  Eighth,  Twelfth,  Thirteenth,  Fifteenth, 
Seventeenth  Cavalry,  and  the  Ninth,  Eleventh,  Seven 
teenth,  Twenty-fifth,  Twenty-sixth,  Twenty-seventh, 
Thirty-fifth,  Thirty-seventh,  Forty-eighth,  Fifty-second 
Infantry,  besides  other  regiments. 

Greensburg  was  second  only  to  Camp  Dick  Robinson 
in  point  of  time  for  early  recruiting  in  Kentucky.  The 
Union  leaders  of  this  section  of  the  State  were  all  men 
of  unusual  ability.  General  W.  T.  Ward  had  served  in 
the  Mexican  War,  as  major,  and  General  E.  H.  Hobson 
as  a  lieutenant.  Aaron  Harding  was  an  eminent  and 
widely  known  lawyer.  Colonel  Frank  Wolford  became  a 
noted  cavalry  officer.  Colonel  George  T.  Wood  of 
Manfordville  was  not  less  distinguished  as  a  citizen  than 
his  son,  Major-General  Thomas  J.  Wood,  as  a  soldier. 
Hon.  A.  G.  Hobson  of  Bowling  Green  was  of  the  same 
honored  family  as  General  E.  H.  Hobson  and  Colonel 
William  E.  Hobson,  and  all  powerfully  upheld  the  Union 
cause.  Bowling  Green  has  been  mentioned  as  a  Union 
centre.  The  leaders  of  public  sentiment  were  numerous 
at  that  point — the  Underwoods,  Griders,  Lovings, 
Hawkins,  Mottley,  and  others. 

Associated  with  General  Ward  at  Greensburg  were  his 
gallant  sons,  Colonel  John  H.  Ward  and  Major  E.  W. 
Ward.  In  Adair  were  Judges  Zachariah  Wheat  and  T. 
T.  Alexander,  and  among  the  soldiers  were  J.  R.  Hind- 
man,  J.  T.  Bramlette,  F.  C.  Winfrey,  and  A.  J.  Bailey. 
In  addition  to  those  already  named  from  Hart  may  be 
mentioned  Dr.  William  Adair,  Dr.  C.  J.  Walton,  Colonel 
William  B.  Craddock,  and  from  Casey,  Colonel  Silas 
Adams,  Majors  L.  M.  Drye  and  George  W.  Drye.  Other 
leading  soldiers  and  citizens  of  the  Green  River  section 
were  William  Lewis  of  Green,  Colonels  Cicero  Maxwell, 
S.  P.  Love,  J.  W.  Weatherford,  J.  R.  Wheat,  Thomas 
Z.  Morrow,  Hartwell  T.  Burge,  Q.  C.  Shanks,  J.  B. 
Carlisle,  W.  B.  Carlisle,  James  Carlisle,  Captains  Ander- 


Location  of  Union  Sentiment         175 

son  Gray,  W.  N.  Vaughn,  and  Hons.  Larkin  J.  Proctor 
of  Brownsville,  and  Wade  Veluzette  of  Metcalf  County. 

It  has  been  stated  in  another  part  of  this  work  that  in 
the  early  organization  of  Union  troops  in  Kentucky  the 
camp  guards  of  the  forming  regiments  were  the  outposts 
of  the  Federal  forces.  In  no  section  was  this  more  strik 
ing  than  in  the  Green  River  section.  The  camp  at  Cal- 
houn,  where  General  Thomas  L.  Crittenden  commanded, 
was  the  rallying-point  for  the  lower  waters,  as  Columbia 
and  Greensburg  were  for  the  upper.  All  were  places  of 
utmost  importance  in  the  first  stages  of  the  war.  In 
November,  1861,  General  Sherman  at  Louisville  reported 
that  "Colonels  Grider  and  Haggard  are  at  Columbia  and 
are  acquainted  with  all  the  country  as  far  as  Bowling 
Green." 

The  Twenty-seventh  and  Thirteenth  and  a  portion 
of  the  Twenty-first  Kentucky  Infantry  were  recruited 
at  Greensburg,  while  the  Confederates  occupied  Mun- 
fordville  in  the  adjoining  county,  only  twenty-four 
miles  distant.  General  Ward,  who  was  organizing  at 
Greensburg,  lost  men  in  killed,  wounded,  and  prisoners 
before  he  had  an  armed  company  in  camp.  Many  of 
his  recruits  came  from  within  the  Confederate  lines. 
They  had  only  their  own  arms,  rifles,  or  shotguns, 
and  it  was  an  event  when  Lieutenant-Colonel  Wheat 
came  with  a  company  armed  with  some  of  the  cele 
brated  "Lincoln  guns"  which  had  found  their  way 
that  far  out  in  the  State.  It  would  be  interesting,  if 
space  permitted,  to  recount  in  detail  the  experiences  of 
these  volunteers  rallying  to  the  camps  to  contribute  the 
splendid  regiments  which  have  been  mentioned  and 
which  served  until  the  end  of  the  war. 

In  an  account  of  his  regiment,  the  Twenty-seventh 
Kentucky  Infantry,  Colonel  John  H.  Ward  says: 

"  Many  of  our  recruits  came  from  inside  the  rebel  lines  and 


i;6  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

had  to  fight  on  the  way  to  the  camp.  We  had  no  arms  except 
our  private  ones,  and  a  few  Home  Guard  muskets.  We  had 
no  countenance  from  the  State  authorities,  as  the  Governor* 
Magoffin,  was  in  sympathy  with  the  South,  and  no  money  ex 
cept  what  we  furnished  from  our  own  means;  we  had  no  quarter 
master  nor  commissary  stores  except  what  we  gathered  from 
the  country,  and  for  which  we  gave  receipts  to  the  people.  I 
do  not  see  how  troops  could  have  greater  difficulties  to 
encounter." 

Munfordville  is  situated  at  the  crossing  of  Green  River  by 
the  Louisvlle  &  Nashville  Railroad.  This  place  is  noted 
for  the  surrender  of  about  4000  Federal  troops  to  General 
Bragg  when  he  invaded  Kentucky  in  1862.  It  is  also 
noted  as  the  native  place  of  two  Kentucky  officers  who 
were  distinguished  on  opposite  sides  in  the  Civil  War, 
General  Simon  Bolivar  Buckner  and  General  Thomas  J. 
Wood.  Both  were  West  Point  graduates,  both  served 
in  the  Mexican  War,  and  both  are  still  living.  General 
Buckner  has  been  Governor  of  Kentucky  since  the  Civil 
War,  and  also  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency  of  the 
United  States.  After  a  long  career  in  public  life  he  now 
resides  at  the  place  of  his  birth,  near  Munfordville,  at  his 
delightful  ancestral  country-seat  known  as  "Glen  Lily." 
His  name  to-day  stands  first  among  Kentuckians,  resident 
in  the  State,  and  by  none  is  he  more  honored  than  by 
those  who  were  Unionists  in  the  great  struggle. 

General  Thomas  J.  Wood  is  now  a  resident  of  the  State 
of  Ohio.  His  career  was  no  less  noted  than  that  of  the 
playmate  of  his  boyhood.  He  had  honorable  service  in 
the  regular  army  before  the  war.  In  the  great  struggle 
he  rose  to  the  rank  of  major-general  of  volunteers,  and 
afterward  he  held  the  rank  of  brigadier-general  in  the 
regular  service.  As  a  divison  and  corps  commander  he 
was  conspicuous  in  all  the  campaigns  in  the  western 
theatre  of  the  war  and  fought  in  scores  of  engagements, 
notably  Shiloh,  Murfreesborough,  Chickamauga,  Mission 


.. 

Location  of  Union  Sentiment         17? 


Ridge,  the  battles  of  the  Atlanta  campaign,  Franklin,  and 
Nashville. 

A  full  account  of  the  Green  River  country,  detailing 
especially  the  part  the  people  took  in  the  Civil  War 
would  make  a  most  interesting  monograph. 

Beyond  the  divide  between  the  head  waters  of  Green 
River  and  the  Cumberland  River  lay  the  counties  of 
Pulaski,  Whitley,  Wayne,  Russell,  Clinton,  and  Cumber 
land.  Although  four  of  these  counties  were  on  the 
Tennessee  line  they  were  all  Union  in  sentiment  and 
furnished  many  excellent  Union  officers.  It  is  not 
possible  in  the  limits  of  this  book  to  mention  all 
the  officers  from  the  different  counties,  but  Colonels 
David  R.  Haggard  and  M.  J.  Owsley  from  Cumberland 
cannot  be  omitted,  nor  the  Van  Winkles  and  Tuttles 
from  Wayne,  nor  Governor  Thomas  E.  Bramlette  of 
Clinton. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  appears  that  instead  of 
Union  sentiment  being  confined  to  sections  of  the  State 
along  the  Ohio  River,  as  some  have  affirmed  simply  as  a 
surmise,  it  extended  through  and  through  the  State  and 
notably  along  the  waters  of  Green  River  and  along  the 
Tennessee  border. 

A  glance  at  the  map  of  Kentucky  will  show  that 
Garrard  County  is  about  in  the  very  centre  of  the  State. 
It  was  in  this  county  that  Camp  Dick  Robinson  was 
located.  It  adjoins  Lincoln  County,  in  which  is  the  old 
town  of  Crab  Orchard.  This  central  portion  of  the  State 
is  interesting  from  the  fact  that  the  old  Wilderness  Road, 
laid  out  by  Daniel  Boone,  from  Cumberland  Gap  to  the 
"level  lands"  of  Kentucky,  first  reached  the  "level  lands" 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Crab  Orchard.  The  counties 
adjacent  to  it  are  the  southern  counties  of  the  Blue  Grass 
region.  Spreading  out  northwardly  from  this  central 
point  lies  the  rich  Blue  Grass,  but  southeastwardly,  the 
hill  country  and  mountains  are  soon  reached. 

12 


Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Tributary  to  Camp  Dick  Robinson  and  Camp  Nelson, 
which  was  established  near  by,  were  the  strong  Union 
counties  lying,  north,  south,  east,  and  west.  No  more 
adnrrable  selection  could  have  been  made  for  the  first 
military  post  of  Kentucky.  It  was  central  as  to  power 
ful  Union  sentiment.  It  commanded  the  natural  way  of 
entering  the  State  from  the  direction  of  eastern  Tennes 
see.  It  was  in  this  direction  that  General  Zollicoffer 
marched  in  January,  1862,  and  from  this  section  General 
Thomas  gathered  the  troops  which  met  the  advance  at 
Mill  Spring. 

Another  interesting  Union  centre  was  the  Maysville 
district.  Chief  among  the  Unionists  at  this  point  was 
Hon.  William  Henry  Wadsworth.  Associated  with  him 
was  Colonel  Thomas  M.  Green,  editor  of  the  Maysville 
paper,  and  many  other  earnest  Unionists.  This  Con 
gressional  district,  a  large  part  of  which  is  in  the  Blue 
Grass  section,  voted  12,230  for  Wadsworth  for  Congress 
in  June,  1861,  against  3720  for  his  opponent,  John  S. 
Williams,  who  became  a  Confederate  general.  As  the 
district  voted,  so  it  furnished  troops.  Colonel  Wadsworth 
mentioned  in  a  report  made  October  29,  1862,  that  his 
district  had  furnished  seven  regiments  to  the  Union  cause 
up  to  that  date.  (W.  R.,  series  I,  vol.  16,  pt.  I,  p. 
1146.) 

It  was  from  this  section  that  movements  were  made  to 
repel  incursions  into  Kentucky  out  of  Virginia,  by  way 
of  Pound  Gap  principally.  The  counties  both  up  and 
down  the  river  from  Maysville,  and  extending  into  the 
State,  were  strongly  Union.  In  the  Big  Sandy  country 
there  was  a  lively  Union  sentiment,  and  by  rallying  and 
keeping  together  such  troops  as  were  not  ordered  to  the 
front,  in  conjunction  with  the  Home  Guards,  the  strug 
gle  was  made  to  defend  this  part  of  the  State  from  the 
ravages  of  a  persistent  and  determined  set  of  reckless 
enemies. 


Location  of  Union  Sentiment         179 

But  it  would  be  no  easy  task  to  determine  in  what 
part  of  Kentucky  Union  sentiment  most  prevailed,  or 
which  section  was  pre-eminent  in  furnishing  troops  to  the 
cause  of  the  Union.  Excepting  the  counties  at  the 
extreme  west  end,  the  entire  State  was  Union  in  senti 
ment,  and  the  volunteers  were  from  the  Blue  Grass,  the 
Green  River  country,  along  the  Ohio,  and  from  the 
mountains.  Notwithstanding  the  historian  Shaler's  re 
mark  that  they  came  from  the  thinner  soils,  while  the 
Confederates  were  from  the  richer  soils,  the  truth  about 
them  is  well  expressed  in  what  Colonel  Ed.  Porter  Thomp 
son  says  about  the  First  Kentucky  Brigade  (Confederate), 
that  they  represented  Kentucky  as  a  whole,  not  any 
particular  class  of  its  citizens ;  that  they  were  from  the 
Ohio  to  the  Tennessee  line,  and  from  the  Big  Sandy  to 
the  Mississippi — from  the  Blue  Grass  section  and  all 
other  sections. 


CHAPTER  XII 

FORCE  AGAINST   FORCE 

THE     following   passage    from    Shaler's    History    of 
Kentucky  is  very  suggestive : 

'  *  It  is  maintained  by  many  Confederate  sympathizers  that  the 
violation  of  the  State's  neutrality  came  first  from  the  Federal 
authorities.  They  cite  the  recruiting  at  Camp  Dick  Robinson 
as  evidence  in  proof  of  their  assertion.  It  is  hardly  worth 
while  to  debate  this  question  of  precedence  when  the  action 
of  both  sides  was  so  nearly  simultaneous,  and  only  accom 
plished  the  inevitable  overthrow  of  the  neutrality  of  the 
Commonwealth ;  still,  after  a  careful  review  of  all  the  records, 
the  present  writer  has  been  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
actual  infringement  of  the  neutrality  proclamation  was  due  to 
the  action  of  Polk  and  Zollicoffer,  and  that  this  simultaneous 
invasion  of  the  State  at  points  some  hundreds  of  miles  apart 
was  deliberately  planned  by  the  Confederate  authorities." 

This  statement  from  an  author  who  usually  makes  it 
appear  that  the  acts  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  were 
wrong,  suggests  inquiry.  What  are  the  grounds  for  say 
ing  the  invasion  of  Kentucky  was  deliberately  planned? 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  men  who  ever  lived  in 
Kentucky  was  Robert  J.  Breckinridge,  D.D.  His  great 
abilities  were  enlisted  on  the  Union  side.  His  home  was 
at  Danville,  in  the  central  part  of  the  State,  not  far  from 
Camp  Dick  Robinson.  He  had  abundant  opportunity 
for  information,  for  he  was  in  the  counsels  of  the  leaders 
of  the  Union  cause,  and  one  of  the  prime  leaders  himself. 
His  prominence  was  such  that  he  was  offered,  but 

180 


Force  against  Force  181 

declined,  the  nomination  for  Vice-President  in  1864,  on 
the  ticket  with  Abraham  Lincoln. 

In  June,  1862,  he  published,  in  the  Danville  Review,  an 
account  of  what  he  called  "The  Secession  Conspiracy  in 
Kentucky  and  its  Overthrow."  What  he  details  confirms 
the  conclusion  reached  by  Shaler  that  the  "simultaneous 
invasion  of  the  State  at  points  some  hundreds  of  miles 
apart  was  deliberately  planned  by  the  Confederate 
authorities." 

It  would  require  strong  and  abundant  proof  to  con 
tradict  the  narrative  of  Dr.  Breckinridge.  It  bears  upon 
its  face  the  evidences  of  truth,  and  no  one  could  be 
named  better  able  to  present  the  facts  of  August  and 
September  in  Kentucky  than  Dr.  Breckinridge.  The 
substance  of  his  narrative  is  here  given,  and  if  any  one 
should  be  disposed  to  question  his  accuracy  as  to  the 
conduct  of  the  secession  leaders,  his  account  of  what  was 
done  by  the  Union  leaders  with  whom  he  was  associated 
can  hardly  be  questioned,  and  the  principal  object  of  the 
present  writer  is  to  show  the  services  rendered  by  the 
Union  leaders  of  Kentucky  in  that  period,  both  to  their 
State  and  to  their  country.  Dr.  Breckinridge  relates  that 
after  the  election  of  August  5,  1861,  which  resulted  in  a 
complete  triumph  for  the  Unionists,  electing  three  fourths 
of  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  on  August  I7th  a 
meeting  of  secessionist  leaders  was  held  in  Scott  County  at 
which  three  plans  were  propounded,  taking  it  for  granted 

"that  the  nation  was  broken  up,  and  the  government  at 
an  end ;  that  the  Confederate  government  was  in  full  and  law 
ful  existence;  that  Kentucky  rightfully  belonged  to  the  Con 
federate  States,  and  that  her  obstinate  refusal  to  take  her 
proper  place  among  those  States  imposed  upon  the  Confed 
erate  government  the  necessity  of  forcing  her  to  do  so,  and 
upon  the  secession  party  in  the  State  the  duty  of  taking  part 
in  her  conquest." 

The  three  plans  were  as  follows: 


1 82  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

1st.  That  the  armies  of  Polk  and  Zollicoffer  and  the 
troops  along  the  Tennessee  line  should  simultaneously 
invade  the  State,  and  that  there  should  be  a  simultaneous 
rising  of  the  secessionists  in  the  State. 

2d.  That  Governor  Magoffin  should  issue  his  proclama 
tion,  calling  upon  all  true  secessionists  to  rise;  that  the 
secession  members  of  the  Legislature  should  be  required 
to  convene,  and  by  them  the  State  should  be  put  into  the 
Confederacy. 

3d.  That  Governor  Magoffin  should  demand  of  Presi 
dent  Lincoln  the  removal  of  the  men  at  Camp  Dick 
Robinson. 

The  third  of  these  plans  was  adopted  at  the  meeting, 
"which  involved  a  little  further  delay,"  and  pursuant 
thereto  Governor  Magoffin  requested  the  removal  of  the 
men  at  Camp  Dick  Robinson.  This  failed.  But  at  the 
same  time  Governor  Magoffin  sent  special  messengers 
also  to  President  Davis.  "The  real  object  of  this," 
says  Dr.  Breckinridge,  "is  sufficiently  explained  by  the 
events  which  followed  "  :  the  invasion  of  General  Polk  at 
Columbus,  and  of  General  Zollicoffer  at  the  other  end  of 
the  State ;  a  few  days  later  Bowling  Green  was  occupied 
by  General  S.  B.  Buckner.  The  auxiliaries  in  the  State 
were  as  follows:  The  State  Guard,  about  5000,  and  a 
secret  band  of  Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle,  about  8000. 
Besides  this,  the  State  of  Tennessee  stood  pledged  to 
support  the  conquest  of  Kentucky. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  says : 

41  It  well  becomes  the  people  of  Kentucky  to  remember  those 
-who  contrived  for  them  such  a  destiny,  and  then  carefully 
led  them  to  it.  To  those  few  loyal  men  who  knew  precisely 
what  was  passing  and  what  was  coming,  it  was  a  spectacle  at 
once  touching  and  august  to  behold  the  calm  and  intrepid 
confidence  of  the  people  in  themselves,  under  perils  they  did 
not  understand,  but  knew  to  be  immense,  awaiting  some  way 
of  assured  deliverance  which  they  would  find  or  make.  Deliv- 


Force  against  Force  183 

erance  did  come.  The  explosion  of  the  conspiracy  was 
delayed.  The  State  was  suddenly  placed  in  a  posture  of  de 
fence;  the  vast  preparations  of  the  conspirators  were  foiled; 
everything  disappeared  but  armies  ranged  for  combat,  and  the 
attempt  to  subjugate  Kentucky  assumed  the  least  dangerous  of 
all  aspects  to  her  brave  peope — the  aspect  of  fair  battle. 
At  the  moment  of  supreme  peril  the  conspirators  suddenly 
encountered  a  degree  of  spirit  and  courage  superior  to  their 
own,  and  out  of  a  condition  apparently  hopeless  there  sprung, 
as  by  a  single  effort,  a  combination  of  irresistible  strength." 
Dr.  Breckinridge  then  narrates  how  muskets  were  con 
veyed  through  the  State  to  the  soldiers  at  Camp  Dick 
Robinson,  and  mentions  the  organization  of  troops 
opposite  Louisville  in  Camp  Joe  Holt,  under  General 
Rousseau.  He  then  says  that  on  August  2Qth,  twelve  days 
after  the  conference  in  Scott  County,  a  conference  was 
held  at  the  headquarters  of  General  Nelson  at  Camp  Dick 
Robinson,  at  which  he  himself  was  present.  It  was 
known  that  a  great  demonstration  of  secessionists  was  to 
be  made  in  Owen  County  on  September  5th.  This  was 
regarded  by  those  at  the  Nelson  conference 
"as  a  part  of  a  wide  conspiracy,  strictly  military  in  its  na 
ture,  intended  to  lead  to  immediate  war  as  a  part  of  a  plan 
which  involved  a  rising  in  the  State,  an  invasion  of  it  in  force, 
and  its  conquest  and  occupancy  by  rebel  forces  as  one  of  the 
main  theatres  of  the  war,  and  its  incorporation  with  the  Con 
federate  States." 

Corroboration  of  this  is  found  in  a  letter  from  General 
Humphrey  Marshall  to  Governor  Magoffin,  dated  Leba 
non,  Va.,  March  23,  1862,  in  which  General  Marshall 
reviews  the  deplorable  events  of  the  previous  year. 

"You  cannot  fail  to  remember  [says  he,]  the  pertinacity 
with  which  I  urged  you  not  to  call  that  extra  session  of  the 
Legislature  which  stripped  you  of  power  and  actually  usurped 
your  constitutional  function  of  commander  of  the  military 
force  of  the  State;  how,  pointing  out  to  you  that  the  Federal 


1 84  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

power  meant  to  concentrate  troops  at  Cairo,  I  advised  you 
to  occupy  and  fortify  Paducah,  Smithland,  and  Columbus 
before  a  single  Federal  regiment  had  marched  to  its  ren 
dezvous,  then  to  secure  the  navigation  of  the  Tennessee  and 
Cumberland." 

As  General  Marshall  was  a  conspicuous  figure  in  the 
demonstration  in  Owen  County,  where  he  had  organized 
troops,  and  as  he  was  to  speak  at  the  "peace"  meeting  at 
Frankfort,  this  letter  reviewing  the  past  shows  how  early 
the  secession  leaders  were  counselling  the  forcible  op 
position  to  the  will  of  the  people  of  Kentucky. 

The  characterization  of  the  people  of  Kentucky  by  this 
distinguished  man,  because  of  their  preference  for  the 
Union,  is  in  every  way  remarkable: 

"  Her  sons  are  now  the  wonder  of  the  rest  of  the  Southern 
people.  Their  love  of  gold ;  their  inclination  to  barter  every 
thing  else  for  the  retention  of  property;  their  disinclination  to 
resist  plain  usurpation  of  the  inestimable  rights,  has  already 
forfeited  the  name  the  State  once  bore,  and  has  brought  my 
own  mind  to  ponder  whether  they  are  fit  to  be  free."  (W. 
R.,  Series  i,  vol.  10,  pt.  2,  p.  468.) 

Hon.  Garrett  Davis  said,  in  a  speech  in  the  United 
States  Senate,  that  it  was  expected  that 

"  Humphrey  Marshall  was  to  make  his  incursion  into  Franklin 
county  and  storm  the  capital.  Some  members,  especially 
secession  members,  of  the  Legislature,  and  some  citizens  of 
the  town  of  Frankfort,  and  one  or  two  judges  of  our  Court  of 
Appeals,  left  Frankfort  hurriedly  in  the  expectation  that  it 
was  to  be  sacked  that  night  by  Humphrey  Marshall's  insurgent 
hosts." 

To  defend  against  the  uprising  that  was  expected  to 
occur  about  the  first  of  September,  1861  (and  it  must  be 
remembered  that  was  the  time  the  Confederates  did,  in 
fact,  invade  the  State)  it  was  ascertained  that  about  4000 
troops  could  be  furnished  from  Camp  Dick  Robinson, 


Force  against  Force  185 

about   2000  from  Camp  Joe   Holt,  and   about  4000  or 
5000  Home  Guards  could  be  concentrated. 

Dr.  Breckimidge  then  says  that  it  was  agreed  at  the 
conference  at  Nelson's  headquarters  that 
"A  special  messenger,  some  member  of  the  meeting,  should 
be  sent  immediately  to  Governor  Magoffin  and  warn  him  on 
behalf  of  General  Nelson,  and  a  responsible  meeting  of  loyal 
citizens,  that  the  plans  and  designs  of  the  secession  leaders, 
in  connection  with  the  Owen  meeting,  were  understood;  that 
any  movement  in  force  by  armed  men  would  be  promptly 
met  by  force;  and  that  the  Governor  would  take  notice  that 
his  being  thus  advertised  beforehand  was  meant,  among 
other  things,  to  signify  that  he  would  be  held  personally 
responsible  for  whatever  evil  might  happen  through  his  neglect 
or  connivance. " 

This  messenger  to  the  Governor  was  to  take  an  order 
from  General  Nelson  to  the  commander  of  the  Home 
Guards  at  Frankfort,  that  he  must  occupy  the  arsenal 
there  with  a  sufficient  force  to  hold  it,  relying  on  imme 
diate  assistance  if  opposed.  If  overpowered  before  relief 
came  he  was  to  spike  the  guns  and  blow  up  the  arsenal. 

Messengers  were  to  be  sent  to  General  Rousseau  at 
Louisville  and  to  the  commanders  of  the  Home  Guards  at 
Lexington,  Louisville,  and  Covington,  and  steps  should 
be  taken  to  complete  the  preparation  of  all  the  loyal 
troops  of  the  State. 

One  of  the  men  composing  the  conference  was  to  go  at 
once  to  the  governors  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  and 
notify  them  of  the  peril  in  Kentucky  and  invoke  aid. 

On  the  second  day  of  September  the  Legislature  con 
vened.  On  the  next  day  General  Polk  entered  the  State. 
At  the  same  time  Zollicoffer  came  in  through  the  moun 
tains.  On  the  5th  the  demonstration  took  place  in 
Owen  County. 

"But,"  says  Dr.  Breckinridge,  "success  was  no  longer 
possible.  The  conspirators  had  been  foiled.  Wise  and 


1 86  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

daring  as  they  supposed  themselves  to  be,  they  had  been 
overmatched  both  in  strategy  and  courage." 

Simultaneously,  almost,  with  Folk's  advance  to  Colum 
bus,  General  Grant  occupied  Paducah.  This  checkmated 
that  movement.  The  show  of  force  by  General  Nelson 
quieted  the  allies  in  Kentucky,  and  afterwards  when 
Zollicoffer's  troops  advanced  they  were  met  and  turned 
back. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  relates  that  on  the  loth  of  September, 
five  days  after  the  demonstration  in  Owen  County,  the 
secession  leaders  held  a  "peace"  meeting  in  Frankfort, 
and  on  the  2Oth  another  peace  meeting  at  Lexington. 
He  thus  disposes  of  the  Frankfort  meeting: 

"  Two  gentlemen  on  the  platform  struggling  for  prece 
dence  in  being  heard,  one  suddenly  drew  out  a  large  meer 
schaum  pipe,  which,  being  mistaken  for  a  revolver,  conscience 
did  the  rest.  Wild  cries  of  danger,  a  confused  struggle  and 
a  crash,  a  vehement  and  scandalous  stampede,  and  the  *  peace  ' 
aspect  of  treason  in  Kentucky  passed  away." 

He  then  details  what  occurred  at  the  Lexington  meeting 
on  the  2Oth.  Just  before  the  day  it  was  to  assemble  the 
Legislature  had  adopted  resolutions  that  the  Confederate 
forces  were  to  be  driven  from  the  State. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  says : 

"  To  a  certain  extent  the  secession  demonstration  was  per 
mitted  to  go  forward,  but  it  was  even  more  fruitless  than  the 
great  ovation  in  Owen  on  the  5th,  or  the  great  peace  confer 
ence  at  Frankfort  on  the  loth.  The  idea  of  a  sudden  and 
triumphant  rising  in  central  Kentucky,  of  the  seizure  of  the 
capital  and  the  Legislative  bodies,  of  the  rapid  and  almost 
unopposed  march  of  the  three  invading  armies  into  the  heart 
of  the  State,  and  of  a  grand  coup  de  main  by  General  Bickly 
and  his  Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle,  were  no  longer  suitable 
to  conspirators  whose  secret  plans  were  seen  to  be  penetrated 
and  counteracted." 

He  also  says : 


Force  against  Force  187 

"  General  George  H.  Thomas  had  just  relieved  General 
Nelson  in  his  command.  At  daylight  on  the  2oth  Colonel 
Bramlette,  with  his  regiment  of  infantry,  was  found  to  have 
pitched  his  tents  in  the  suburbs  of  Lexington  during  the  pre 
vious  night.  During  the  day  Colonel  Wolford's  regiment  of 
Kentucky  cavalry  came  up.  Towards  evening  a  battery  of 
artillery  filed  through  the  principal  streets  of  the  city  on  its 
way  to  Bramlette's  camp.  A  body  of  local  Home  Guards  in 
creased  the  force  to  about  two  full  regiments  in  all.  No 
explanations  were  asked  or  offered  on  either  side,  for  every  one 
understood  that  a  disloyal  demonstration  designed  expressly 
as  a  menace  was  appointed  for  that  day ;  every  one  understood 
that  Colonel  Bramlette's  force  was  there  on  that  account." 

Three  days  after  this  the  Thirty-fifth  Ohio  Infantry  ap 
peared  at  the  town  of  Cynthiana.  About  this  same  time 
it  was  confidently  expected  that  the  Confederates  would 
reach  Louisville,  but  that  movement  was  frustrated  by 
the  prompt  movement  down  the  line  of  the  Louisville  & 
Nashville  Railroad  by  the  troops  Rousseau  had  gathered 
at  Camp  Joe  Holt,  and  by  the  Home  Guards  of  Louisville, 
with  whom  went  General  W.  T.  Sherman. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  says: 

"The  struggle  of  parties  had  been  fierce,  silent,  cease 
less,  and  deadly  from  the  i;th  of  August  to  the  23d  of 
September.  The  catastrophe  came.  Its  immediate  ef 
fect  was  the  great  deliverance  we  have  explained. ' ' 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  this  deliverance,  which 
was  due  mainly  to  the  resolute  stand  of  the  Kentucky 
Unionists,  there  appeared  upon  the  scene  at  the  most 
critical  points  those  three  remarkable  characters  Grant, 
Sherman,  Thomas. 

In  the  eventful  month  of  September,  1861,  there  was 
no  obstacle  to  the  rally  either  to  the  standard  of  the 
Southern  cause  or  to  the  National  flag.  All  ideas  of  neu 
trality  went  completely  to  the  winds,  and  it  was  evident 
that  nothing  was  in  store  for  the  future  except  force 


1 88  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

against  force.  The  Confederate  armies  were  in  Kentucky, 
along  the  southern  border,  from  Columbus  to  Cumberland 
Gap.  The  ways  were  wide  open  for  all  who  felt  so  in 
clined  to  go  out  and  join  them.  Nor  was  there  any 
reason  for  the  Unionists  to  hesitate  to  organize  into 
regiments  wherever  they  pleased. 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  August  election  of  1861 
was  the  time  of  all  others  for  the  secession  element  to 
show  its  strength  at  the  polls.  If  that  election  would 
send  a  secession  majority  to  the  Legislature,  the  State 
would  be  controlled  by  them.  So  another  turning  point 
came  in  September.  If,  as  was  so  loudly  proclaimed,  a 
majority  of  the  Kentucky  people  were  Southern  in  senti 
ment,  the  hour  had  arrived  for  them  to  show  it.  If,  as 
was  so  persistently  asserted,  the  "unprincipled  Union 
leaders"  had  deceived  and  deluded  the  people  the 
opportunity  was  at  hand  for  them  to  throw  off  the  shac 
kles  and  stand  up  for  their  freedom.  Nothing  was  in  the 
way  of  a  wholesale  rush  to  the  Confederate  camps  at 
Columbus,  Hopkinsville,  Russellville,  Bowling  Green,  and 
other  points  as  far  as  Cumberland  Gap.  The  histo 
rian  Shaler  truthfully  says  that  it  was  a  valuable 
commentary  on  the  assertion  that  Kentucky  was  at  heart 
with  the  Confederacy,  that  with  forces  much  above  any 
that  could  oppose  them,  any  advance  of  the  Confederates 
beyond  the  Southern  line  was  made  with  extreme 
caution.  (P.  261.) 

It  is  too  plain  a  proposition  to  require  more  than  a 
brief  suggestion  that  the  Kentucky  secessionists  knew 
the  people  of  the  State  were  against  them.  There 
fore,  the  comparatively  few  who  did  leave  to  take  sides 
with  the  South  did  not  immediately  return  in  triumph 
with  the  armies  with  which  they  went  to  redeem  their 
State  from  the  "oppressor." 

Many  assertions  were  made  at  the  time,  which  have 
been  often  repeated  since,  which  had  no  semblance  of 


Force  against  Force  189 

foundation,  and  the  contradiction  lies  in  the  facts  of  the 
time.  The  one  just  mentioned,  that  Kentucky  was  at 
heart  with  the  South,  is  contradicted  by  the  facts  stated, 
and  renders  inexcusable  the  careless  writing  of  historians. 
For  instance,  Shaler  says  that  before  the  end  of  the 
month  of  September  40,000  of  the  natural  fighting 
population  of  the  State  went  off  to  the  Confederacy. 
(P.  269.)  On  the  preceding  page  he  says  nearly  20,000 
Union  Kentuckians  were  enlisted  and  ready  for  the  field, 
and  with  the  newly  raised  regiments  that  had  come  in 
from  the  North,  the  Federal  force  in  the  State  was 
about  40,000.  Now,  if  40,000  had  gone  to  swell  the 
Confederate  armies  at  Columbus,  Hopkinsville,  Rusell- 
ville,  Bowling  Green,  and  other  places,  why  did  they  not 
proceed  at  once  to  hold,  occupy,  and  possess  Kentucky, 
which  such  forces  might  easily  have  done? 

The  truth  is,  the  Confederates  knew  that  no  such 
number  of  Kentuckians  then  left  the  State,  and  the 
historian  Z.  F.  Smith  more  correctly  states  the  number 
at  near  10,000  (p.  614),  while  the  official  records  make 
them  still  less.  The  Confederates  also  knew  that  the 
Kentucky  Unionists  were  organizing  with  great  activity, 
and  that  the  numbers  of  Union  troops  were  in  proportion 
to  the  Confederates  precisely  like  the  voting  strength 
shown  at  the  polls.1 

Another  of  the  oft-repeated  assertions  of  the  time  was 
that  the  purpose  of  the  Northern  people  was  to  overrun 
the  South  like  barbarians  and  mistreat  helpless  women 
and  children  in  every  horrible  way.  Quotations  from 
the  lurid  speeches  on  this  subject  are  made  in  this  work. 
Among  others,  Commissioner  Hale,  of  Alabama,  indulged 
in  such  language  in  his  address  to  Governor  Magoffin,  and 
Governor  Magoffin  replied  that  he  had  not  exaggerated 
the  case.  That  such  inflammatory  utterances  were  not 
credited  by  anybody,  even  by  those  who  made  them,  is 

1  See  Appendix,  §  14,  p.  349. 


1 90  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

shown  by  a  remark  of  Dr.   Breckinridge  in  his  article  in 
the  Danville  Review: 

"It  is  a  characteristic  feature  of  the  men  and  the 
times  that,  nearly  without  exception,  such  as  had  wives 
and  children  left  them  to  the  care  of  those  whose  country 
it  was  their  object  to  conquer,  and  to  the  protection  of 
the  government  they  took  up  arms  to  subvert." 

If  there  had  been  any  expectation  of  the  terrible 
atrocities  predicted  by  reckless  speakers  and  writers,  the 
natural  feeling  would  have  led  those  who  went  off  to 
help  the  Southern  cause  to  carry  their  loved  ones  with 
them,  while  the  way  was  wide  open  to  escape  the  awful 
fate  that  awaited  them  at  home.  Better  a  thousand  times 
would  it  have  been  for  them  to  endure  hardships  behind 
the  Confederate  lines,  than  to  remain  where  the  "brutes'* 
from  the  North  could  get  at  them. 

All  the  conduct  of  the  time  showed  that  the  rush  into 
the  Confederacy  was  an  experiment,  based  upon  the 
known  fact  that  the  movement  was  against  a  beneficent 
government,  and  against  a  people  so  far  removed  from 
barbarians  that  the  Kentucky  Confederates  left  their 
loved  ones  behind  in  implicit  trust. 

Another  of  the  assertions  of  the  times,  when  force 
began  to  be  arrayed  against  force,  and  oft  repeated  after 
wards,  was  that  Kentucky  was  first  betrayed  and  then 
seized  by  force,  and  thus  held  in  the  Union.  In  connec 
tion  with  all  this,  "usurpation  of  power"  and  "despotic 
rule"  were  charged.  But  that  the  Union  leaders  who 
were  guiding  Kentucky  affairs  at  that  time  could  be  guilty 
of  betrayal  of  the  interests  of  their  State  is  too  monstrous 
a  proposition  to  be  entertained  a  single  moment.  These 
leaders  were  well  represented  by  the  members  of  Con 
gress  then  at  Washington,  and  who  were  elected  in 
June,  1861.  They  were  John  J.  Crittenden,  Charles 
A.  Wickliffe,  James  S.  Jackson,  Henry  Grider,  Aaron 
Harding,  George  W.  Dunlap,  Robert  Mallory,  William 


Force  against  Force  1 9 1 

H.  Wadsworth,  John  W.  Menzies.  At  home  were  such 
men  as  James  F.  Robinson,  James  Speed,  Garrett  Davis, 
Joshua  F.  Bell,  James  Harlan,  Archibald  Dixon,  James 
Guthrie,  S.  S.  Nicholas,  and  many  like  them,  together 
with  the  whole  body  of  newly-elected  Union  members 
of  the  State  Legislature.  All  charges  against  such  men 
are  contradicted  by  their  own  personal  character. 

The  other  charges  of  usurpation,  despotism,  unwarranted 
arrests,  and  oppression  of  the  people  are  well  answered 
by  the  simple  fact  that  war  had  been  precipitated,  and  a 
time  of  force  against  force  had  come.  It  was  not  a  time  to 
sit  down  supinely  and  allow  force  on  one  side  to  work  out 
its  natural  fruits,  and  not  resist  it  by  force  on  the  other, 
and  when  the  history  of  the  period  is  considered, 
it  appears  that  the  Southern  Confederacy,  which  was 
preferred  by  some  Kentuckians,  did  not  supinely  submit 
to  treason  against  it.  It  is  found  that  it  dealt  with  men 
inside  its  lines  with  a  military  rigor  far  surpassing  in 
severity  that  of  the  United  States.  The  array  of  force 
against  force  brought  on  conditions  wholly  different 
from  conditions  of  peace.1 

Without  intending  to  make  this  work  cover  in  detail 
all  the  events  of  the  war  in  Kentucky,  which  would, 
indeed,  require  many  volumes,  it  will  not  be  out  of  place 
to  here  mention  briefly  some  of  the  first  instances  where 
force  met  force  actually  upon  the  battle-field. 

Through  the  months  of  October  and  November  and 
December,  1861,  the  Confederates  occupied  their  posi 
tions  along  the  southern  border  of  Kentucky.  Efforts 
to  advance  from  Bowling  Green  to  Louisville  were 
successfully  resisted,  and  the  protection  of  this  important 
place  was  due  to  the  Kentucky  Unionists  who  had 
organized  as  Home  Guards  in  Louisville,  and  to  the 
Kentuckians  General  Rousseau  had  gathered  into  Camp 
Joe  Holt,  opposite  Louisville.  The  more  westerly  parts 

1  See  Appendix,  §  15,  p.  350. 


i92  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

of  the  State  were  protected  by  the  fast  forming  Kentucky 
regiments  at  Camp  Calhoun  on  Green  River,  about 
twenty-five  miles  south  of  Owensboro,  where  Colonel 
James  S.  Jackson,  Colonel  John  H.  McHenry,  Colonel 
James  M.  Shackelford,  Colonel  P,  B.  Hawkins  were 
organizing  their  regiments,  and,  all  under  command 
of  General  Thomas  L.  Crittenden,  were  guarding  the 
country. 

In  the  eastern  part  of  the  State  the  Fourteenth,  Six 
teenth,  Twenty-second  and  Twenty-fourth  Kentucky 
regiments,  under  Colonels  Laban  T.  Moore,  Charles 
A.  Marshall,  D.  W.  Lindsey,  and  John  S.  Hurt, 
respectively,  with  other  troops,  successfully  resisted 
all  the  advances  into  Kentucky  from  Virginia.  In  the 
middle-eastern  section,  General  Zollicoffer,  in  October, 
moved  as  far  into  the  State  as  London,  where  he 
attacked  the  Federals  at  Camp  Wildcat,  and  after 
serious  loss  retreated.  In  this  early  engagement  the 
First  Kentucky  Cavalry,  Colonel  Wolford,  and  the 
Seventh  Kentucky  Infantry,  Colonel  Garrard,  were 
conspicuous. 

In  January,  1862,  General  Zollicoffer  began  to  move 
further  into  the  State.  General  Thomas  was  at  Lebanon, 
and  went  out  with  what  forces  he  had  to  meet  this 
advance.  The  encounter  took  place  near  Mill  Springs, 
about  ten  miles  south  of  Somerset.  His  command  con 
sisted  of  eleven  regiments  and  two  batteries.  Four  of 
these  regiments  were  Kentuckians — the  Fourth  Infantry, 
led  by  Colonel  Speed  S.  Fry;  the  Tenth  Infantry,  led  by 
Colonel  JohnM.  Harlan;  theTwelfth  Infantry,  led  by  Colo 
nel  William  A.  Hoskins;  the  First  Cavalry,  led  by  Colonel 
Frank  Wolford.  His  entire  force  numbered  about  4000, 
and  the  strength  of  the  enemy,  under  Generals  Crittenden 
and  Zollicoffer,  was  about  the  same.  The  Tenth  Kentucky 
was  not  in  the  battle,  being  on  detached  duty  when 
this  battle  opened.  It  reached  the  field  just  as  the 


Force  against  Force  193 

battle  closed,  and  joined  in  the  pursuit   of  the  fleeing 
Confederates. 

On  the  I  Qth  of  January  the  advancing  Confederates  first 
met  Wolford's  cavalry,  which  resisted  the  advance,  and 
the  Tenth  Indiana  came  to  his  relief  by  order  of  General 
Manson.  He  also  ordered  up  the  Fourth  Kentucky  In 
fantry,  Colonel  Fry.  Fry  rushed  his  men  forward,  and 
was  at  once  in  the  midst  of  a  severe  battle.  The  opposing 
forces  had  approached  so  close  to  each  other  that  Colonel 
Fry,  in  riding  through  the  trees,  encountered  a  Confeder 
ate  officer  wearing  a  waterproof  coat  which  so  covered  his 
uniform  that  Fry  did  not  know  he  was  a  Confederate. 
This  officer  said  to  Fry,  "  We  must  not  fire  on  our  own 
men,"  and  Fry  replied,  "Of  course  not."  At  that 
moment  another  rider  appeared,  who  fired  at  Fry  and 
wounded  his  horse.  Fry  then,  seeing  the  situation,  fired 
on  the  officer  whom  he  had  first  met.  The  officer  fell, 
and  it  proved  to  be  Zollicoffer.  At  this  time  the  Con 
federates  were  getting  upon  the  right  flank  of  the  Fourth 
Kentucky  Infantry,  and  at  this  time  also  General  Thomas 
appeared.  He  hurried  the  Tenth  Indiana  to  the  exposed 
flank.  Another  Confederate  brigade  then  came  up  and 
the  Twelfth  Kentucky  Infantry  was  ordered  into  line,  also 
two  East  Tennessee  regiments  and  the  batteries.  The 
Federal  line  was  held,  and  as  the  Confederates  pressed 
the  fight,  the  Ninth  Ohio  and  Second  Minnesota 
reached  the  field.  The  fighting  was  severe  and  per 
sistent  for  a  time,  when  a  bayonet  charge  was  made 
by  the  Ninth  Ohio  against  the  enemy's  left.  This 
caused  a  break  and  at  once  the  whole  line  gave  way. 
The  Tenth  Kentucky  and  Fourteenth  Ohio  arrived  and 
^omed  in  the  pursuit.  The  retreat  was  rapid  and  dis 
orderly.  The  Confederates  abandoned  their  artillery 
and  wagons,  and  hurriedly  crossed  to  the  other 
side  of  Cumberland  River.  In  their  abandoned 
camp,  which  was  on  the  north  side,  they  left  ammuni- 
13 


194  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

tion,  stores  of  all  kinds,  muskets,  and  several  stands  of 
colors. 

This  decisive  victory  was  won  in  part  by  the  Union 
regiments  of  Kentucky,  and  if  anything  can  be  true, 
these  Kentucky  troops  were  defending  their  Union  State 
against  the  persistent  efforts  of  the  secession  party  to 
occupy  and  control  Kentucky,  and  to  conquer  her  and 
attach  her  to  the  Confederacy,  regardless  of  the  vote  of 
her  citizens  and  their  oft-expressed  will. 

Yet  we  read  the  following  comment  on  this  battle  in 
Jefferson  Davis's  History  (vol.  ii.,  p.  22): 

'  The  heart  of  even  a  noble  enemy  must  be  moved  at 
the  spectacle  of  citizens  defending  their  homes  with 
muskets  of  obsolete  pattern  and  shotguns  against  an 
invader  having  all  the  modern  improvements  in  arms. ' ' 

And  this  in  face  of  the  facts  that  there  were  four 
Kentucky  regiments  in  the  army  of  General  Thomas,  and 
no  Kentuckian  with  the  Confederate  force  except  Gen 
eral  George  B.  Crittenden,  its  commander. 

The  defeat  of  the  Confederate  advance  under  Zollicoffer 
was  followed  a  month  later  by  the  fall  of  Fort  Donelson, 
which  led  to  the  evacuation  of  Kentucky  by  the  Con 
federates  at  all  points.  They  did  not  return  in  force  until 
the  following  summer  and  fall,  when  Generals  Bragg  and 
Kirby  Smith  came  in  with  another  invasion  for  the 
"redemption"  of  Kentucky,  and,  as  will  be  seen,  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  supplies  and  also  of  enforcing  the  Con 
federate  conscription  laws  upon  the  people  of  the  Union 
State  of  Kentucky. 

The  battle  of  Mill  Springs  was  the  first  of  a  series  of 
important  successes  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  arms,  and 
was  especially  significant  to  the  Unionists  of  Kentucky. 
It  lifted  from  them  a  great  apprehension  that  the  State 
was  to  be  invaded,  and  brought  hope  and  cheer  in  place 
of  dread. 

In  connection  with  this  first  serious  engagement  in 


Force  against  Force  195 

Kentucky  the  following  narrative  is  deeply  interesting. 
It  was  prepared  by  Justice  John  M.  Harlan,  with  no 
thought  of  publication,  but  he  has  permitted  its  use  in 
this  work. 

He  states  that  in  September,  1861,  he  determined  to 
enter  the  Union  volunteer  service: 

"In  the  prosecution  of  that  purpose  [says  he]  I  set 
about  raising  a  regiment  of  infantry.  My  headquarters  were 
established  at  Lebanon,  Kentucky,  and  from  that  point  I  went 
to  several  adjoining  counties  making  speeches  for  the  Union 
cause  and  inviting  men  to  join  my  regiment.  .  .  .  By  Novem 
ber,  1 86 1,  I  had  succeeded  in  bringing  into  camp  about  a 
thousand  men.  The  regiment  was  accepted  by  the  State  and 
was  subsequently  (November  21,  1861)  mustered  into  the  ser 
vice  of  the  United  States.  The  names  of  my  officers  and  men 
appear  in  the  official  report  of  Adjutant-General  Lindsay  of 
Kentucky.  When  commissioned  as  Colonel  I  was  only  twenty- 
eight  years  of  age.  William  H.  Hays  (who,  after  the  war, 
became  United  States  District  Judge  at  Louisville)  was  Lieu 
tenant-Colonel;  Gabriel  C.  Wharton  became  Major,  and  after 
the  war  United  States  District  Attorney  for  Kentucky;  Wil 
liam  J.  Lisle  was  appointed  Adjutant,  and  Rev.  Richard  C. 
Nash,  a  Baptist  minister,  was  Chaplain.  The  service  con 
tained  no  more  gallant  men  than  those  who  composed  my 
regiment,  the  Tenth  Kentucky  Volunteer  Infantry.  While  the 
regiment  was  at  Lebanon,  other  regiments  of  infantry  were 
sent  there  to  remain  subject  to  orders.  About  that  time, 
General  George  H.  Thomas  (who  was  then  about  forty-four 
years  of  age,  and  became  one  of  the  four  great  generals  of  the 
war  on  the  Union  side)  came  to  Kentucky,  under  orders  from 
Washington,  and  a  division  was  formed,  to  the  command  of 
which  he  was  assigned.  In  the  same  division  was  the  Fourth 
Kentucky  Volunteer  Infantry,  of  which  Speed  S.  Fry  was 
Colonel,  John  T.  Croxton  was  Lieutenant-Colonel,  and  P.  B. 
Hunt  was  Major.  In  the  same  division  was  the  Fourteenth 
Ohio  Infantry,  of  which  James  B.  Steedman  was  Colonel, 
George  P.  Este  Lieutenant-Colonel,  and 


196  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

was  Major;  the  Ninth  Ohio  Volunteer  Infantry,  of  which 
Robert  L.  McCook  was  Colonel;  and  the  Second  Minnesota,  of 
which  H.  P.  Van  Cleve  was  Colonel, George  was  Lieutenant- 
Colonel,  and Wilkins  Major;  the  Tenth  Indiana  Volunteer 

Infantry,  of  which  M.  D.  Manson  was  Colonel,  W.  C.  Kise  was 

Lieutenant-Colonel,     and Miller    Major.      There    were 

other  regiments  in  the  division,  but  I  do  not  now  recall  the 
names  of  their  field  officers.  My  associations  were  mainly  with 
the  regiments  above  named. 

"In  December,  1861,  General  Thomas  received  orders  to 
march  his  division  to  Mill  Springs  in  Pulaski  County,  on  the 
Cumberland.  We  commenced  our  march  on  the  last  day  of 
that  month  and  year,  going  by  the  way  of  Campbellsville  and 
Columbia.  It  began  raining  when  we  left  Lebanon,  and 
rained  almost  continually  every  day  for  several  weeks.  It 
was  understood  at  the  time  that  a  large  body  of  rebel  troops 
under  General  Zollicoffer  were  encamped  on  the  Cumberland 
near  Mill  Springs,  and  an  invasion  of  Kentucky  by  those 
troops  was  apprehended.  Thomas  with  his  troops  was  ex 
pected  to  meet  and  drive  them  back. 

"The  route  to  Mill  Springs  was  over  a  dirt  road,  and  the 
earth  was  so  thoroughly  soaked  with  rain  that  Thomas's  troops 
could  make  only  a  few  miles  each  day.  The  regimental 
wagons  sank  into  the  earth  up  to  the  hubs  of  the  wheels,  and 
had  to  be  lifted  out  by  the  soldiers.  There  was  not  a  day 
when  I  did  not  myself  join  in  that  work  in  order  to  encourage 
my  men.  All  along  the  route  we  had  to  cut  down  tiees  and 
saplings  and  make  what  were  called  '  corduroy '  roads,  over 
which  the  wagons,  when  lifted  out  of  the  mud,  ivould  be 
placed  by  the  soldiers. 

"Finally,  the  advance  regiments  of  the  division  reached 
Logan's  Field,  three  or  four  miles  from  the  Cumberland  River. 
I  do  not  remember  the  precise  date  of  their  arrival,  but  I  know 
that  it  was  on  a  certain  Friday  night.  The  Fourteenth  Ohio 
and  the  Tenth  Kentucky  were  then  ten  miles  in  the  rear  on  the 
march.  That  night,  after  our  camp  had  been  established,  an 
order  came  from  General  Thomas,  who  was  with  his  advance 
regiments,  directing  Colonel  Steedman  and  myself  to  take  our 


Force  against  Force  197 

respective  regiments  early  the  next  morning,  Saturday,  and  go 
off  to  the  right  to  a  certain  point  five  or  ten  miles  distant  and 
capture  a  rebel  forage  train  which  was  supposed  to  be  in  that 
part  of  the  country.  We  performed  this  duty,  and  kept  our 
regiments  concealed  all  day,  in  the  hope  that  the  rebel  train 
would  pass  near  us.  But  no  such  train  could  be  found,  and 
it  became  certain  that  the  information  received  by  General 
Thomas  was  incorrect.  At  the  close  of  the  day  we  returned 
to  our  camp  on  the  main  road  at  about  dark — that  camp,  as 
already  stated,  being  ten  miles  in  the  rear  of  General 
Thomas's  advance  troops  at  Logan's  Field. 

"  The  next  morning,  Steedman  and  myself  prepared  to  re 
sume  our  march  and  join  the  other  regiments  of  our  division, 
say  about  eight  o'clock.  Just  as  we  were  starting,  a  cavalry 
man  belonging  to  Wolford's  Kentucky  Cavalry  regiment 
came  galloping  up,  and  brought  an  order  that  we  must  hurry 
to  the  front,  as  the  rebels,  under  Zollicoffer,  had,  early  in  the 
morning,  advanced  on  Thomas,  and  that  a  fierce  battle  was 
raging  It  was  a  magnificent  sight  to  see  how  the  boys  strug 
gled  through  mud  and  rain  to  reach  the  field  of  battle.  The 
ground  was  so  wet  and  muddy  under  them  that  their  feet 
slipped  at  every  step.  I  see  now  with  great  distinctness  old 
Father  Nash  pushing  along  on  foot  with  the  boys.  Equally 
earnest  with  him  was  a  Catholic  priest  from  Washington 
County,  who  had  come  with  Catholic  soldiers  from  that 
county.  There  were  many  Catholics  in  my  regiment. 

"Well,  we  missed  the  battle,  although  we  tried  hard  to  be 
in  it.  When  we  reached  the  battle-field,  the  battle  had 
ended,  and  the  rebels  had  fallen  back  or  retreated  to  their 
fortifications  on  the  river.  We  went  through  the  battle-field 
and  saw  many  dead.  It  was  a  most  harrowing  sight  to  me. 
We  passed  right  by  the  body  of  General  Zollicoffer,  which  had 
been  placed  on  a  plank  on  the  ground  (no  doubt  by  some 
Union  officer  or  soldier).  He  had  on  a  light-colored  rubber 
overcoat.  There  was  some  dispute  for  a  time  as  to  who  shot 
Zollicoffer.  But  it  was  clearly  established  that  he  was  killed 
by  a  pistol-shot  fired  by  Colonel  Fry.  Zollicoffer  came  upon 
the  men  of  Fry's  regiment  in  the  belief  that  it  was  a  Confed- 


198  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

erate  regiment.  He  was  ordered  by  Fry  to  halt,  and  as  he 
did  not  do  so,  Fry  shot  him.  Fry  did  not  know,  when  he 
shot,  that  he  was  firing  at  Zollicoffer.  I  had  all  this  from 
Fry  himself. 

"We  did  not  halt  at  the  battle-field,  but  moved  on  to  join 
General  Thomas  who,  with  such  of  the  Union  troops  as  were 
in  the  fight,  followed  the  Confederates  to  their  fortifications 
on  the  Cumberland  River.  We  caught  up  with  General 
Thomas  about  five  or  six  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  and  found 
the  Union  troops  in  front  of  the  rebel  fortifications,  which 
appeared  to  be  quite  formidable.  It  turned  out  that  if 
Thomas  had,  before  dark,  attacked  the  rebels  in  their  fortifi 
cations,  he  could  have  carried  the  day  and  perhaps  captured 
all  the  fleeing  rebels  with  their  guns.  But  the  General  thought 
otherwise,  and  made  up  his  mind  to  defer  an  assault  until  next 
morning,  when  all  his  troops  would  be  on  hand. 

"As  soon  as  Colonel  Steedman  and  myself  joined  the  other 
troops,  we  reported  to  General  Thomas.  We  informed  him 
that  our  regiments  regretted  very  much  that  the  useless  march 
of  the  day  previous,  in  pursuit  of  a  supposed  rebel  forage 
train,  had  prevented  them  from  being  in  the  battle.  We 
asked  that  our  regiments  be  given  a  chance  in  the  proposed 
assault  of  the  next  morning.  He  acceded  to  our  request,  and 
directed  us  to  put  our  regiments  in  the  front,  ahead  of  all  the 
others,  and  at  the  break  of  day  move  forward  and  begin  the 
fight.  We  so  located  our  regiments,  and  passed  the  night 
without  any  lights  or  fires  to  indicate  where  our  soldiers  were. 
At  dawn  our  men  were  aroused  and  formed  in  line,  and  they 
immediately  moved  forward  to  the  rebel  fortifications,  looking 
every  moment  for  the  rebels  to  open  fire  upon  us.  But  they 
did  not  fire,  and  we  went  into  the  fortifications  ahead  of  all 
the  other  troops,  without  resistance,  and  found  no  rebels  there. 
The  rebels,  it  was  ascertained,  had  quietly  crossed  the  river 
in  the  night,  on  a  steamboat  they  owned  or  had  impressed  into 
their  service,  and  had  fled  south  into  east  Tennessee.  Early 
in  the  day  I  crossed  the  river  with  one  or  two  others  in  a  skiff, 
and  went  a  mile  or  so  down  the  main  road  on  which  the  rebels 
had  retreated,  and  took  dinner  at  the  house  of  a  man  by  the 


Force  against  Force  199 

name  of  West.  While  at  dinner  word  was  brought  that  a  flag 
of  truce  had  appeared  near  by,  and  that  the  officer  bringing  it 
wished  to  confer  with  us.  I  went  down  to  the  road  and  met 
that  officer.  It  was  Lieutenant  Ewing  of  Tennessee,  who  was 
on  Zollicoffer's  staff.  His  object  was  to  obtain  the  body  of 
General  Zollicoffer.  I  informed  him  that  it  could  not  be 
done — that  arrangements  had  been  made  to  send  the  body 
through  Louisville  to  Nashville  for  delivery  to  Zollicoffer's 
family.  In  a  conversation  with  Ewing,  I  learned  that  the 
rebels,  when  they  retired  from  the  battle-field,  were  of  opinion 
that  the  Union  forces  amounted  to  more  than  10,000  men. 
But  such  was  not  the  fact.  The  only  Union  regiments  en 
gaged  in  the  fight  were  the  Tenth  Indiana,  Fourth  Kentucky, 
Ninth  Ohio,  Second  Minnesota,  a  part  of  Colonel  Hoskins's 
Kentucky  infantry,  and  a  company  of  Wolford's  cavalry  regi 
ment,  not  exceeding  3000  men  fit  for  duty. 

"The  regiments  composing  Thomas's  division  camped  in 
the  rebel  fortifications  for  a  time  after  the  battle;  how  long  I 
do  not  remember.  Shortly  afterwards  the  division  was  or 
dered  to  Nashville,  Tennessee,  We  went  to  Louisville,  and 
thence  by  boat  to  Nashville.  This  was,  I  think,  in  February, 
1862.  We  camped  at  a  beautiful  place  near  Nashville." 


CHAPTER  XIII 

'  *  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT ' ' 

THE  month  of  November,  1861,  witnessed  a  remark 
able  sequel  to  the  refusal  to  be  governed  by  the 
solemn  stand  which  Kentucky  had  taken  in  the  Union. 
The  secessionists,  instead  of  acquiescing  in  the  determina 
tion  of  the  people  declared  at  the  polls,  left  the  State, 
and  in  September  returned  with  the  armies  of  the  Con 
federacy.  The  same  men  whom  the  people  had  beaten 
at  the  June  and  August  elections  determined  to  rule  the 
destinies  of  Kentucky  anyhow,  The  Confederate  military 
encampment  was  at  the  town  of  Russellville,  near  the 
southern  border.  There  in  the  military  camp  these  men 
held  a  meeting  and  resolved  Kentucky  out  of  the  Union, 
and  applied  for  the  admission  of  the  State  into  the 
Southern  Confederacy.  They  even  made  a  governor — 
George  W.  Johnson — and  appointed  men  to  represent 
Kentucky  in  the  Confederate  Congress. 

The  Confederate  authorities,  being  advised  of  the  ac 
tion,  went  through  the  formality  of  admitting  Kentucky 
into  the  Confederacy. 

In  order  that  it  may  appear  how  the  will  and  wishes  of 
the  people  of  Kentucky  were  utterly  disregarded  by  those 
of  her  people  who  preferred  the  Southern  Confederacy  to 
their  own  State,  as  well  as  to  the  Union,  the  details  of 
this  extraordinary  action  will  be  given. 

The  convention  at  Russellville  was  held  November  18, 
19,  and  20,  1861.  How  it  came  to  assemble  is  indicated  in 
the  record  of  its  proceedings.  No  authority  existed  for 

200 


"  Provisional  Government"  201 

such  a  convention,  and  those  composing  it  had  left  the 
State,  and  had  returned  with  the  Confederate  army. 
They  were  at  a  town  near  the  southern  border,  and  the 
Confederate  military  lines  extended  only  a  short  distance 
from  the  Tennessee  line.  The  occupancy  in  Kentucky 
was  of  a  fractional  portion  only,  and  that  military  and 
temporary. 

On  the  29th  of  October  sixty-three  men,  who  were  in 
Russellville  during  the  occupation  of  that  place  by  the 
Confederate  troops,  met  in  a  hall,  selected  a  chairman  and 
secretary,  and  appointed  a  committee  on  resolutions. 

On  the  next  day  the  committee  reported  resolutions, 
which  were  adopted.  The  resolutions  were,  that : 

"  Whereas,  The  Legislature  of  Kentucky  has  violated  solemn 
pledges,  deceived  and  betrayed  the  people,  abandoned  neu 
trality,  invited  into  the  State  the  organized  armies  of  Lincoln, 
abdicated  the  government  in  favor  of  military  despotism, 
brought  on  the  State  the  horrors  and  ravages  of  war,  voted  men 
and  money  for  the  war  waged  by  the  North,  violated  the 
Constitution  by  borrowing  $5,000,000  for  the  support  of 
the  war,  permitting  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  citizens, 
transferred  the  prerogatives  of  the  executive  to  a  military 
commission  of  partisans,  allowed  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  be 
suspended,  permitted  our  people  to  be  driven  into  exile  from 
their  homes,  subjected  our  property  to  confiscation,  and  our 
persons  to  confinement,  because  we  chose  to  take  part  in  a 
contest  for  civil  liberty, 

"Resolved,  That  the  unconstitutional  edicts  of  a  factious 
majority  of  the  Legislature  thus  false  to  their  pledges,  their 
honor,  and  their  interests,  are  not  law,  and  that  such  govern 
ment  is  unworthy  of  a  brave  and  free  people,  and  we  therefore 
denounce  their  unconstitutional  acts  and  usurpations,  and  bid 
defiance  both  to  the  Federal  and  State  governments. 

"Resolved,  That  abandoned  and  betrayed  as  we  have  been 
by  the  Lincolnite  majority  of  the  Legislature  of  Kentucky,  and 
proscribed  by  the  abolition  party  who  have  usurped  the  Federal 
government,  and  broken  down  the  Constitution  of  the  Federal 


202  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Union,  and  being  as  yet  no  part  of  the  Southern  Confederacy, 
and  therefore  altogether  without  the  protection  of  law,  the 
people  have  by  the  laws  of  God  and  the  express  letter  of  the 
Constitution  of  Kentucky,  'at  all  times  an  inalienable  and 
indefeasible  right  to  reform  or  abolish  their  government  in  such 
manner  as  they  may  think  proper,'  and  in  the  language  of  the 
same  Constitution,  we  declare,  'that  absolute  and  arbitrary 
power  over  the  lives  and  liberty  and  property  of  freemen  exists 
nowhere  in  a  republic,  not  even  in  the  largest  majority.' 

"Resolved,  That  we  do  hereby  declare  that  the  majority  of 
the  Legislature  by  their  acts  have  abandoned,  betrayed,  and 
abdicated  the  government,  and  that  the  people  have  now  a 
right  to  a  fair  representation  of  their  will,  and  that  the  Gover 
nor  be  and  is  invited  to  convene  a  Legislature  to  meet  outside 
the  lines  of  the  Lincoln  army,  to  be  composed  of  such  mem 
bers  as  are  now  elected,  and  may  attend,  or  new  members  to 
be  chosen  by  the  people.  And  whereas  we  have  reason  to 
believe  that  the  Governor  is  unable  to  convene  the  Legislature 
outside  the  lines  of  the  Lincoln  army,  therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  we  recommend  a  convention  to  be  chosen, 
elected,  or  appointed  in  any  manner  now  possible  by  the  people 
of  the  several  counties  of  the  State,  to  meet  at  Russellville  on 
the  1 8th  day  of  November,  and  we  recommend  to  them  the 
passage  of  an  ordinance  severing  forever  our  connection  with 
the  Federal  government,  and  to  adopt  such  measures,  either 
by  the  adoption  of  a  provisional  government  or  otherwise  as 
in  their  judgment  will  give  full  and  ample  protection  to  the 
citizens  in  their  persons  and  property  and  secure  to  them  the 
blessings  of  constitutional  government. 

"Resolved,  That  we  recommend  to  the  people,  in  every 
county  where  they  have  the  power  to  do  so,  to  organize  at 
once  a  county  guard,  of  at  least  one  hundred  men,  to  be  armed 
by  the  people,  in  every  county,  and  mounted,  if  possible,  to  be 
paid  as  Confederate  troops,  and  subject  to  duty  in  their  own 
and  adjoining  counties,  and  subject  also  to  the  rule  and 
regulations  of  the  Confederate  States  and  to  the  order  of  the 
commanding  general. 

"Resolved,  That  we  will  never  pay  one  cent  of  the  uncon- 


"  Provisional  Government'*          203 

stitutional  loan  of  $5,000,000  obtained  by  the  Legislature  from 
the  banks  for  the  prosecution  of  this  war  instituted  for  the 
coercion  and  subjugation  of  the  slaveholding  States,  and  that 
we  will  resist,  by  force  of  arms  if  necessary,  the  collection  by 
the  sheriff  of  all  taxes  intended  to  be  paid  over  to  the  Lincoln 
party  in  the  Legislature,  and  that  we  denounce  as  enemies  to 
their  country  and  constitutional  government  all  those  who  may 
advocate  the  payment  of  the  same  to  the  sheriffs  for  the 
purposes  aforesaid. 

"Resolved,  That  Robert  McKee,  John  C.  Breckinridge, 
Humphrey  Marshall,  George  W.  Ewing,  H.  W.  Bruce,  G.  B. 
Hodge,  William  Preston,  G.  W.  Johnson,  Blanton  Duncan, 
and  T.  B.  Thompson  be  and  are  hereby  appointed  a  committee 
to  carry  out  the  above  resolutions." 

This  meeting  was  styled  "the  Southern  Conference." 
Its  proceedings  were  published,  and  pursuant  to  the  call 
contained  in  the  resolution  the  convention  of  November 
1 8th  was  held.  The  proceedings  of  the  convention  say: 

"  Pursuant  to  a  call  issued  by  the  Southern  Conference, 
held  at  Russellville  on  the  2pth,  3oth,  and  3ist  days  of 
October,  1861,  the  people  of  Kentucky  assembled  in  conven 
tion  at  Russellville  on  Monday,  November  18, 1861,  to  take  into 
consideration  the  unfortunate  condition  of  the  State  and 
devise,  if  possible,  some  means  of  preserving  the  independence 
of  the  Commonweath,  and  their  liberties." 

The  call,  therefore,  was  issued  by  those  persons  who 
chose  to  style  themselves  "the  Southern  Conference." 
They  had  not  been  able  to  have  a  convention  called  by 
the  regularly  elected  representatives  of  the  people  in 
the  Kentucky  Legislature,  so  they  assumed  to  call  one 
themselves. 

The  object  of  the  convention  was  "to  consider  the 
unfortunate  condition  of  the  State."  This  was  an 
assumption  that  people  of  the  State  did  not  know  what 
they  wanted,  or  needed,  or  was  good  for  them;  that 
although  the  people  had  declared  their  will  at  the  polls, 


204  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

with  absolute  freedom,  a  great  moral  obligation  rested 
upon  the  defeated  party  that  they  should  take  care  of  the 
State.  There  is  more  than  grandeur  in  this ;  it  attains  to 
the  sublime  in  audacious  presumption. 

The  convention  thus  called,  for  the  purpose  stated, 
adopted  resolutions: 

"That  whereas  the  President  and  Congress  have  treated 
the  supreme  law  of  the  Union  with  contempt  and  usurped  to 
themselves  power,  and  have  substituted  for  national  liberty  a 
centralized  despotism  founded  upon  the  ignorant  prejudices  of 
the  masses  of  Northern  society,  and,  instead  of  giving  pro 
tection  to  the  people  of  fifteen  States  of  this  Union,  have 
turned  loose  upon  them  the  unrestrained  and  raging  passions 
of  mobs  and  fanatics;  and  because  we  now  seek  to  hold  our 
liberties,  our  property,  our  homes,  and  our  families  under  the 
protection  of  the  reserved  powers  of  the  States,  have  block 
aded  our  ports,  invaded  our  soil,  and  waged  war  upon  our 
people  for  the  purpose  of  subjugation  to  their  will; 

"And  whereas  our  honor  and  our  duty  to  posterity  demand 
that  we  shall  not  relinquish  our  own  liberty,  nor  abandon  the 
right  of  our  descendants  and  of  the  world  to  the  blessings  of 
Constitutional  government, 

"Be  it  ordained:  That  we  do  hereby  forever  sever  our 
connection  with  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and 
in  the  name  of  the  people  we  do  hereby  declare  Kentucky 
to  be  a  free  and  independent  State,  clothed  with  all  power 
to  fix  her  own  destiny,  and  to  secure  her  own  rights  and 
liberties." 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  foregoing  preamble  it  is 
declared  that  Congress  had  treated  the  supreme  law  with 
contempt,  and  usurped  powers.  So  now  in  a  preamble 
to  the  next  resolution  it  is  declared  that  the  Kentucky 
Legislature  violated  most  solemn  pledges,  and  deceived 
and  betrayed  the  people,  invited  military  despotism,  and 
have  thrown  upon  the  people  the  ravages  of  war,  sub 
jected  their  property  to  confiscation,  and  their  persons 


"  Provisional  Government "  205 

to  the  penitentiary,  and  such-like  monstrous  practices; 
therefore, 

"Be  it  ordained:  That  the  unconstitutional  edicts  of  a 
factious  majority  of  a  Legislature  thus  false  to  their  pledges, 
their  honor,  and  their  interests,  are  not  laws,  and  that  such 
government  is  unworthy  of  the  support  of  a  brave  and  free 
people,  and  that 

44  We  do  therefore  declare  that  the  people  are  thereby  ab 
solved  from  all  allegiance  to  said  government,  and  that  they 
have  the  right  to  establish  any  government  which  to  them  may 
seem  best  adapted  to  the  preservation  of  their  rights  and 
liberties." 

The  convention  then,  among  other  things,  appointed 
three  commissioners  to  negotiate  with  the  Southern 
Confederacy  for  the  admission  of  Kentucky  into  that 
government. 

A  form  of  government  was  also  made  for  Kentucky — 
wonderful  in  its  simplicity,  and  beyond  degree  strange, 
emanating  from  men  who  were  supposed  to  believe  in 
government  by  the  people. 

Section  I  of  the  Constitution  provided  that  "  the  su 
preme  executive  and  legislative  powers  of  the  provisional 
government  of  this  Commonwealth  shall  be  vested  in  a 
Governor  and  ten  Councilmen." 

The  Governor  and  Council  have  full  power  to  pass  laws ; 
and  in  case  of  vacancy,  the  Council  shall  choose  another 
Governor.  All  governmental  powers  were  lodged  in  this 
Board.  (War  Records,  Serial  No.  127,  p.  740.) 

George  W.  Johnson,  of  Scott  County,  was  made  Gov 
ernor  of  Kentucky,  and  the  Council  of  ten  appointed. 
The  Governor  and  Council  thus  named  proceeded  to  enact 
laws  for  the  State,  which  were  duly  published  in  the 
Louisville  Courier,  which  paper  was  printed  and  issued  at 
Bowling  Green  as  long  as  the  Confederates  remained  in 
Kentucky,  which  was  up  to  the  month  of  February,  1862. 

Among  the  legislative  acts  of  this  singular  legislative 
body  were  the  following: 


206  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

"That  all  sales  of  property  made  under  any  judgment  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  or  any  District  Court 
of  the  United  States,  since  November  20,  1861,  are  declared 
null  and  void  and  no  title  shall  pass  to  the  purchaser.  Ap 
proved  January  28,  1862."  (Bowling  Green  Courier ,  February 

7,  1862.) 

"An  Act  to  amend  the  charter  of  the  Louisville  &  Nash 
ville  Railroad.  Approved  January  25,  1862."  (7#.,  February 

8,  1862.) 

"An  Act  abolishing  the  equity  and  criminal  courts  of  the 
Fourth  Judicial  District  of  Kentucky."  (/£.) 

"An  Act  that  the  Bank  Commissioner  of  the  State  of 
Kentucky  shall  administer  an  oath  to  every  Bank  President, 
Director,  Cashier,  Teller,  Clerk,  Messenger,  or  any  other 
officer  of  every  bank  in  Kentucky,  that  he  will  support  the 
Constitution  of  the  Confederate  States,  and  of  the  provisional 
government  of  Kentucky.  Approved  February  15,  1862." 
(/#.,  February  10,  1862.) 

"An  Act  prohibiting  the  opening  of  the  polls  and  holding 
an  election  in  the  first  district  under  proclamation  of  B. 
Magoffin."  In  the  act  Governor  Magoffin  is  mentioned  as 
follows:  "In  obedience  to  the  proclamation  aforesaid,  or  any 
other  proclamation  issuing  from  said  B.  Magoffin,  or  any 
other  person  professing  to  exercise  the  functions  of  Governor 
of  Kentucky  other  than  the  Governor  of  this  provisional 
government."  (/£.,  February  10,  1862.) 

"An  Act  to  change  the  name  of  Wolfe  County,  Ky.,  the 
same  to  be  called  Zollicoffer  County.  Approved  Jany  28, 
1862."  (/£.,  February  n,  1862.)  ' 

George  W.  Johnson,  who  had  been  made  Governor, 
was  killed  about  four  months  afterward,  in  the  battle  of 
Shiloh,  and  Richard  Hawes,  of  Bourbon  County,  was 
chosen  as  his  successor.  In  order  to  keep  up  the  farce, 
Hawes  was  inaugurated  at  Frankfort  when  the  Confeder 
ate  army  under  Generals  Bragg  and  Kirby  Smith  came 
into  Kentucky  in  the  fall  of  1862,  but  retired  before  the 

1  See  Appendix,  §  16,  p.  351. 


"  Provisional  Government "  207 

ceremonies  were  over  on  account  of  the  approach  of 
Buell's  army. 

The  commissioners  who  were  appointed  to  obtain  the 
admission  of  Kentucky  into  the  Confederacy  successfully 
carried  out  their  mission.  On  the  loth  day  of  December, 
1861,  it  was  enacted  by  the  Confederate  Congress: 

"That  the  State  of  Kentucky  be  and  is  hereby  ad 
mitted  a  member  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America, 
on  an  equal  footing  with  the  other  States  of  the 
Confederacy." 

It  is  interesting  to  note  upon  what  grounds  the  singular 
performance  of  these  men,  in  a  military  camp,  assuming 
to  act  for  the  State  of  Kentucky,  was  based  by  them 
selves.  A  full  disclosure  upon  this  point  is  contained  in 
a  letter  to  the  Confederate  President,  from  George  W. 
Johnson,  dated  November  21,  1861. 

He  did  not  base  the  action  upon  the  right  of  secession, 
but  upon  the  right  of  revolution.  He  declares  that,  Con 
gress  and  the  Legislature  having  adopted  oppressive  and 
despotic  acts,  nothing  was  left  but  resistance;  that  the 
right  of  secession  not  being  possible,  revolution  was  the 
only  way. 

"The  foundation,  therefore,  upon  which  the  pro 
visional  government  rests,  is  a  right  of  revolution  institu 
ted  by  the  people,  for  the  preservation  of  the  liberty  and 
interests  and  the  honor  of  a  vast  majority  of  the  citizens 
of  Kentucky."  (War  Records,  Serial  No.  127,  p.  743.) 

It  seems  incredible,  and  doubtless  it  would  not  be 
believed,  that  such  utterances  could  have  come  from  an 
intelligent  source,  but  for  the  fact  that  the  letter  of 
Johnson  is  embalmed  in  the  records  of  the  country.  He 
knew  how  the  people  of  Kentucky  had  voted.  He  knew 
that  they  had  decreed  by  their  suffrages  that  they  would 
not  take  the  State  out  of  the  Union  and  into  the  Con 
federacy,  and  yet  he  professes  to  be  acting  for  a  vast 
majority  of  the  citizens  of  Kentucky. 


208  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Johnson  goes  on  in  the  letter  in  bitter  denunciation  of 
the  leaders  of  the  Union  party  in  Kentucky.  Who  they 
were  he  does  not  say.  It  might  be  supposed  that  the 
distinguished  men  who  had  been  elected  to  Congress  in 
June — Crittenden,  Wickliffe,  Jackson,  Harding,  Grider, 
Dunlap,  Mallory,  Wadsworth,  Menzies — were  leaders, 
but  he  says  the  leaders  had  "  embodied  in  their  creed 
that  their  party  was  in  favor  of  an  ultimate  connection 
of  the  State  with  the  South,"  and  certainly  none  of  these 
men  who  were  voting  in  Congress  in  July,  1861,  for  men 
and  money  to  put  down  the  rebellion  ever  heard  of  such 
a  creed.  It  might  be  supposed  that  R.  J.  Breckinridge 
and  Joshua  F.  Bell  and  James  Speed,  James  Guthrie,  S. 
S.  Nicholas,  Garrett  Davis,  the  Clays,  the  Underwoods, 
Burnam,  Garrard,  the  Buckners,  the  Hobsons,  the  Wards, 
the  Goodloes,  the  Harlans,  and  scores  of  such-like  men 
were  leaders,  but  their  creed  was  " secession  is  a  remedy  for 
no  evil,  but  an  aggravation  of  all."  No  one  of  the 
Union  leaders  ever  heard  of  a  creed  among  Union  men 
favoring  ultimate  connection  with  the  South. 

Johnson  goes  on  to  say : 

"Up  to  the  last  moment  of  safety,  we  attempted  to 
save  the  State  by  State  action,  and  we  did  this  because 
we  knew  the  people  were  almost  unanimously  with  us  as 
to  the  ultimate  destiny  of  the  State." 

Such  words  are  astounding  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that 
Kentucky  elected  Union  men  against  secessionists  by 
overwhelming  majorities;  in  the  face  of  the  further  fact 
that  at  the  time  the  words  were  written  the  Union  regi 
ments  were  filling  up  all  over  the  State,  and  in  the  face 
of  the  further  fact  that  three  times  as  many  Kentuckians 
served  in  the  Union  army  as  in  the  Confederate  army. 

But  the  representations  had  the  desired  effect.  Presi 
dent  Davis  transmitted  Mr.  Johnson's  letter  to  the  Presi 
dent  of  Congress,  Hon.  Howell  Cobb,  saying  the  powerful 
exposition  of  the  misrepresentation  of  the  people  of 


"  Provisional  Government"          209 

Kentucky  by  the  people  they  had  chosen  to  vote  for  led 
him  to  the  conclusion  that  "the  revolution  in  which  they 
were  engaged  offered  the  only  remedy  within  their  reach 
against  usurpation  and  oppression." 

He  also  said  the  proceedings  for  the  admission  of 
Kentucky  into  the  Confederacy  were  irregular,  but  there 
was  enough  merit  in  it  to  warrant  a  disregard  of  the 
irregularity,  and  admit  the  State. 

In  all  the  annals  of  history  there  cannot  be  found  such 
a  revolution  as  this — a  revolution  of  the  people  in  which 
the  people  did  not  engage — a  revolution  which  the  people 
voted  against — a  revolution  concocted  by  men  whom  the 
people  had  beaten  at  the  polls — a  revolution  to  drag  a 
people  where  they  did  not  want  to  go,  and  emphatically 
refused  to  go. 

The  farce  may  have  misled  the  Confederate  authorities; 
especially  it  may  have  misled  the  Confederate  military 
leaders,  for  they  afterwards  came  into  Kentucky  in  great 
force  and  offered  to  the  oppressed  people  the  golden 
opportunity  to  rise  and  break  their  shackles.  But  the 
people  met  them  in  battle  array  and  forced  them  to  retire, 
complaining  that  they  had  been  misinformed  as  to  the 
feelings  of  the  people  of  Kentucky,  and  the  arms  they 
brought  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  rising  multitudes 
were  carried  back  or  cast  away  in  retreat. 

Certainly  Governor  Magoffin  was  in  sufficient  sympathy 
with  all  that  pertained  to  the  Southern  cause  to  lead  him 
to  look  favorably  upon  the  action  at  Russellville  if  there 
had  been  any  merit  in  it  whatever,  but  his  expression  on 
the  subject  at  the  time  was  decidedly  condemnatory. 
The  message  of  "Governor  "  Johnson  being  published,  in 
which  he  said  "I  will  gladly  resign  when  ever  the  regularly 
elected  Governor  [that  is,  Magoffin]  shall  escape  from  his 
virtual  imprisonment  at  Frankfort,"  Governor  Magoffin 
said  of  the  convention  at  Russellville:"!  condemn  its 
action  in  unqualified  terms.  Self-constituted  as  it  was 


14 


210  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

and  without  authority  from  the  people,  it  cannot  be  justi 
fied  by  similar  revolutionary  acts  in  other  States  by 
minorities  to  overthrow  the  State  governments.  I  con 
demn  their  action  and  I  condemn  the  action  of  this  one ; 
my  position  is  and  has  been,  and  will  continue  to  be,  to 
abide  by  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
State."  (Collins,  vol.  i.,  p.  98.) 

The  mention  that  has  been  made  of  the  Russellville 
"convention"  and  its  proceedings  by  the  historians 
of  Kentucky  varies.  Shaler  calls  it  a  "pretence  of 
legislation."  He  says: 

"Few  more  curious  instances  of  political  pretence  can  be 
found  in  history.  .  It  is  impossible  to  see  what  was  the  profit 
of  this  action.  So  far  from  gaining  sympathy  for  the 
rebellion,  in  Kentucky,  it  tended  rather  to  discredit  the  Con 
federacy  among  the  people." 
But  he  has  no  word  of  condemnation. 

He  finds  occasions  to  use  many  strong  objurgatory 
words  in  recounting  what  was  done  from  time  to  time  by 
Kentucky  Unionists:  such  expressions  as  "brutal," 
"pernicious,"  "disgraceful,"  "iniquitous,"  "exasperat 
ing,"  "usurpation,"  "prostituted,"  are  applied  liberally 
to  the  Unionists  and  all  that  they  did.  He  speaks  of  the 
"utter  degradation  of  the  solemnity  of  an  oath";  that 
"the  Legislature  in  casting  about  for  a  safeguard  against 
the  numerous  sympathizers  with  the  rebellion  bethought 
itself  of  this  bond  of  the  oath,"  but  that  "this  miscella 
neous  oath-taking  was  a  degradation  of  a  most  sacred 
relation,  that  brought  no  profit  to  those  who  prostituted 
it  to  political  ends." 

Thus  he  characterizes  what  was  done  by  the  Unionist 
Legislature  of  Kentucky.  But  the  usurpation  at  Russell 
ville  does  not  receive  from  the  "Unionist"  historian  any 
harsh  expression,  only  a  mild  disapproval — far  milder 
than  that  of  Governor  Magoffin,  who  was  not  a  Unionist. 
And  while  he  condemns  the ' '  degradation  of  oath-taking ' ' 


"  Provisional  Government "  2 1 1 

as  required  by  the  Legislature,  he  is  silent  as  to  the 
requirements  of  the  Russellville  "government"  that  all 
bank  officers  in  Kentucky,  from  president  down  to 
messenger,  should  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
Southern  Confederacy." 

Z.  F.  Smith  says:  "On  the  i8th  of  November  the 
States  Rights  party  met  by  delegates  at  Russellville, 
Kentucky,  and  organized  a  provisional  government, 
under  which  the  State  went  through  the  form  of  admis 
sion  into  the  Confederacy." 

He  gives  no  details;  does  not  mention  that  Confeder 
ate  troops  had  come  into  Russellville,  and  that  the  people 
who  made  up  the  convention  had  come  in  with  them. 
He  leaves  the  reader  of  his  history  to  infer  that  a  party 
really  met  by  delegates,  in  a  delegate  convention,  after 
the  usual  practice.  Nor  does  he  give  any  clue  to  the 
absurdity  of  the  proceedings  by  any  comment.  (P.  619.) 

General  George  B.  Hodge,  writing  the  "Outline  History" 
in  Collins's  Kentucky,  makes  no  mention  of  the  fact  that 
the  Confederate  forces  were  at  Russellville.  He  says  a 
call  was  published — he  does  not  say  by  whom — "sum 
moning  the  people  of  Kentucky  to  organize  a  govern 
ment.  A  convention  of  persons  claiming  to  be  delegates 
from  all  the  counties  not  under  control  of  the  Federal 
armies  assembled  at  Russellville."  He  then  states  that 
a  constitution  was  adopted  and  a  Governor  and  a  Council 
chosen,  and  that  "in  this  body  was  provisionally  vested 
all  the  legislative  and  executive  authority  of  the  State." 

Hodge  writes  upon  the  subject  with  all  the  gravity  as 
if  he  had  been  recounting  the  most  orderly,  dignified,  and 
bona  fide  proceedings.  His  readers  would  never  know 
from  his  work  that  they  were  as  extraordinary  as  it  is 
plain  they  were  from  the  account  herein  given. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
BRAGG' s  INVASION  OF  KENTUCKY 

THE  greatest  military  event  that  ever  took  place  in 
Kentucky  was  the  invasion  of  1862.  It  is  com 
monly  called  "Bragg's  invasion,"  but  this  expression 
carries  the  mind  mainly  to  the  march  of  Bragg's  army  up 
from  Tennessee  through  Glasgow,  Munfordville,  Bards- 
town,  and  out  by  way  of  Perryville,  whereas  the  invasion 
also  extended  over  the  country  about  Lexington  and 
east  of  that  point.  Three  Confederate  armies  entered 
the  State  by  concerted  action — Bragg  from  Chattanooga, 
Kirby  Smith  from  Knoxville,  and  Humphrey  Marshall 
from  southwestern  Virginia.  At  the  same  time  raiding 
bands  were  active  in  the  western  part  of  the  State. 

It  was  called  an  " invasion"  and  correctly  so.  In  one 
very  important  particular  it  was  an  absolutely  unwar 
ranted  invasion.  The  invaders  came  for  the  avowed  pur 
pose  of  enforcing  in  Kentucky  the  conscription  law  of  the 
Confederacy,  precisely  as  if  Kentucky  had  been  one  of 
the  States  that  had  joined  the  Confederacy.  The  Con 
federate  conscription  law  forced  into  the  ranks  every  man 
of  military  age.  It  was  not  a  draft  which  took  one  out 
of  several  by  lot,  but  conscription  swept  in  all.  The 
voters  of  Kentucky  who  steadily  refused  to  secede  were 
to  be  forcibly  taken  and  forced  into  the  Confederate  ranks 
and  made  to  fight  against  their  own  principles. 

The  invasion  was  unlooked-for  and  unexpected,  and  the 
State  was  in  no  way  prepared  to  resist  it.  In  the  first  days 
of  August,  1862,  Bragg's  main  army  was  in  the  vicinity 

212 


Bragg's  Invasion  of  Kentucky         213 

of  Chattanooga,  and  Buell,  with  the  opposing  Federal 
army,  was  in  the  southern  part  of  middle  Tennessee. 
No  one  was  expecting  any  movement  like  the  one  which 
suddenly  took  place.1 

One  object  of  the  invasion  is  stated  by  General  Bragg 
in  his  report.  He  says  that  the  army  with  him  was  to 
co-operate  with  that  of  Kirby  Smith  and  that  of  Hum 
phrey  Marshall;  that  on  August  28th  Smith  moved 
upon  Lexington,  Kentucky.  "That  rich  country,"  says 
he,  "full  of  supplies  so  necessary  to  us,  was  represented 
to  be  occupied  by  a  force  which  could  make  but  feeble 
resistance."  Smith  first  moved  into  this  "rich  country  " 
and  Bragg's  advance  immediately  followed.  He  marched 
rapidly  up  from  Tennessee,  arriving  at  Glasgow  Septem 
ber  1 3th.  Moving  on  northwards,  he  took  Munfordville 
September  i/th. 

At  that  time  he  was,  says  he,  "reduced  to  three  days' 
rations  and  in  a  hostile  country  utterly  destitute  of  sup 
plies.  "  He  says  he  could  not  hazard  a  battle  with  Buell's 
army,  which  was  also  moving  northwardly.  "We  were 
therefore  compelled  to  give  up  the  object  and  seek  for 
subsistence."  He  therefore  hastened  on  to  Bardstown. 
There  General  Bragg,  leaving  General  Polk  in  com 
mand,  went  in  person  to  Lexington.  At  Lexington  he 
ordered  Kirby  Smith  to  move  to  Frankfort,  to  which  place 
he  went  himself,  to  be  present  at  the  inauguration  of 
Governor  Hawes.  Then  he  says: 

"Finding  but  little  progress  had  been  made  in  the 
transfer  of  our  accumulated  stores  from  Lexington," 
and  learning  of  Buell's  advance  out  from  Louisville,  "this 
required  abandonment  of  the  capital  and  partial  uncover 
ing  and  ultimate  loss  of  our  stores  at  Lexington." 

He  then  went  to  Perryville  and  met  General  Polk 
there  with  his  army,  October  7th,  and  on  the  next  day 
the  battle  was  fought.  After  that,  he  retired  from  the 

1  See  Appendix,  §  17,  p.  352. 


2H  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

State,  through  the  mountains,  over  the  Old  Wilderness 
Road,  and  through  Cumberland  Gap.  At  the  conclu 
sion  of  his  report,  instead  of  acknowledging  failure,  he 
boasts  of  killing,  wounding,  and  capturing  "no  less  than 
25,000  of  the  enemy,  taken  over  thirty  pieces  of  artillery, 
17,000  small  arms,  some  2,000,000  cartridges  for  same, 
destroyed  some  hundreds  of  wagons,  and  brought  off 
several  hundred  more  with  their  teams  and  harness  com 
plete;  replaced  our  jaded  horses  by  a  fine  remount,  lived 
two  months  upon  supplies  wrested  from  the  enemy's 
possession,  secured  material  to  clothe  the  army,  and  finally 
secured  subsistence  from  the  redeemed  country  to  sup 
port  not  only  the  army,  but  also  a  large  force  of  the  Con 
federacy  to  the  present  time."  (War  Records,  series  i, 
vol.  16,  p.  1088.) 

The  State  which  declined  to  secede  was  redeemed  by 
an  invasion  of  her  richest  section,  subsisting  an  army 
upon  the  country,  and  carrying  away  whatever  could  be 
carried  in  a  disastrous  retreat.  It  is  evident  that  one 
object  of  the  invasion  was  supplies.  It  is  said  that  his 
spoils  loaded  nearly  four  thousand  wagons  with  the 
plunderings  of  dry  goods  stores,  groceries,  etc.  The 
Richmond  Examiner  boasted  that  his  train  was  forty  miles 
long,  and  brought  a  million  yards  of  jeans,  boots  and 
shoes,  clothing,  bacon.  From  one  house  in  Lexington 
more  than  $100,000  worth  of  jeans  and  linseys  were  taken. 
Trains  of  wagons  were  moving  out  of  the  various  towns 
of  central  Kentucky  day  and  night,  and  Lexington 
furnished  the  richest  harvest  the  Confederates  had  dur 
ing  the  war.  (W.  J.  Tenney's  History  of  the  Rebellion, 
p.  288.) 

Another  object  was  recruits  for  the  army,  volunteers 
or  conscripts.  General  Bragg  issued  a  proclamation  say 
ing  he  came  to  offer  an  opportunity  to  the  people  to  free 
themselves  from  the  tyranny  of  a  despotic  ruler.  * '  Believ 
ing  that  the  heart  of  Kentucky  is  with  us,  we  have  trans- 


Bragg's  Invasion  of  Kentucky         215 

ferred  from  our  own  soil  to  yours  not  a  band  of 
marauders,  but  a  powerful  and  well-disciplined  army. 
We  have  come  with  joyous  hopes." 

General  Smith  said : 

"We  came  to  strike  off  the  chains  which  are  riveted 
upon  you.  We  call  upon  you  to  unite  your  arms  and 
join  with  us  in  hurling  back  from  our  fair  and  sunny  plains 
the  northern  hordes  who  would  deprive  us  of  our  liberty, 
that  they  may  enjoy  our  substance." 

The  very  language  of  Bragg's  proclamation  shows  that 
he  did  not  really  regard  Kentucky  as  a  Confederate  State : 
"  We  have  transferred  from  our  soil  to  yours  "  a  power 
ful  army.  Yet  that  soil  which  did  not  belong  to  the 
Confederacy  was  to  be  a  field  for  conscription. 

While  at  Bardstown,  Bragg  issued  an  address,  calling 
upon  the  people  to  rally  to  his  standard  :  that  he  had  arms 
and  ammunition  for  all;  that  the  usual  pay  and  bounty 
would  be  given ;  that  after  twenty  companies  of  cavalry 
were  received  the  recruits  would  be  placed  in  the  infantry 
service.  Then  follows  the  strange  words  to  the  ears  of 
the  Kentucky  people:  "This  is  the  last  opportunity 
Kentuckians  will  enjoy  for  volunteering.  The  conscript 
act  will  be  enforced  as  soon  as  the  necessary  arrange 
ments  can  be  made."  (War  Records,  Serial  No.  no, 

P.  365.)  ^ 

The  historians  who  find  so  much  to  condemn  in  the 
conduct  of  the  war,  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  command 
ers  in  Kentucky,  make  no  comment  upon  this  treatment 
of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  by  the  Confederates.  They 
denounce  as  outrages  "military  arrests  of  civilians,"  but 
pass  over  in  silence  this  proposed  wholesale  arrest  of  all 
able-bodied  men  in  the  State  for  service  in  the  Confeder 
ate  ranks.  They  find  no  place  to  express  condemnation 
of  it.  They  do  not  even  mention  it  in  the  accounts  they 
give  of  the  invasion. 

General  Hodge,  writing  of  this  campaign,  says: 


216  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

"Bragg,  disgusted  with  the  lukewarmness  which  manifested 
itself  on  the  subject  of  recruiting  for  the  army,  lost  his  head, 
divided  his  army  to  meet  the  division  Buell  had  made  of  his, 
fought  near  Perryville  the  larger  force  which  Buell  had  on  the 
south  bank  of  the  Kentucky  River  with  the  smaller  moiety  of 
his  own,  defeated  it,  called  back  his  large  body  from  the 
direction  of  Lexington  and  Frankfort,  and  retreated  out  of  the 
State  with  more  rapidity  than  he  had  entered  it."  (Collins, 
vol.  i.,  p.  348.) 

Smith  says  that  after  the  battle  of  Perryville 

"the  two  armies,  now  in  full  strength,  confronted  each  other, 
45,000  Confederates,  54,000  Federals.  Their  lines  were  but 
three  miles  apart,  and  it  was  the  general  belief  that  Bragg 
should  and  would  deliver  battle  to  his  enemy,  now  on  terms  as 
nearly  equal  as  is  usual  in  the  great  contests  of  war. 
The  expectation  of  a  great  battle  on  that  day  was  disappointed. 
Bragg  ordered  his  command  to  fall  back  upon  his  base  at 
Bryantsville,  and  gathering  up  all  supplies  collected  he  con 
tinued  his  march  of  retreat  to  Lancaster,  where  the  army 
was  divided,  Smith  going  out  by  Richmond  and  Cumberland 
Gap,  and  Bragg  by  Crab  Orchard  and  Tennessee." 

He  makes  no  reflection  upon  the  drain  that  was  made 
upon  the  Kentucky  people  to  supply  the  wants  of  a  vast 
army,  nor  upon  the  preparations  to  conscript  the  people 
themselves  into  the  Confederate  service,  but  contents 
himself  with  quoting  a  wail  from  General  Duke's  book^ 
that  thus  ended  a  campaign  from  which  so  much  was 
expected,  and  that  the  best  chance  of  the  war  was  thrown 
away.  Also  that,  at  the  Confederate  capital,  the  Rich 
mond  papers  spoke  of  the  campaign  as  a  "brilliant 
blunder,  a  magnificent  failure,  profoundly  disappointing, 
and  mortifying  Southern  people  and  dashing  their  fond 
hopes  of  liberating  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  from  the 
Federal  hold."  (P.  649.) 

Shaler,  who  finds  space  to  condemn  the  Federal  offi 
cers  in  Kentucky,  especially  those  who  were  Kentuckians, 


Bragg's  Invasion  of  Kentucky         217 

on  account  of  the  popular  stories  of  the  day,  unsup 
ported  by  any  records,  who  condemns  the  provost 
marshals  and  the  Home  Guards  in  the  same  way,  has 
nothing  to  say  about  the  wrongs  done  and  contemplated 
by  the  invasion.  He  says:  "There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  people  of  Kentucky  endured  far  more  outrage 
from  the  acts  of  the  Federal  provost  marshals  than  they 
did  from  all  the  acts  of  legitimate  war  put  together." 

(P.  353-) 

He  also  tells  of  the  "brutal  tyranny  of  the  provost 
marshal  system"  and  of  the  trouble  given  by  Home 
Guards  who  "could  not  be  kept  in  proper  control"  and 
were  "an  element  of  great  danger  in  the  civil  government 
of  the  State." 

All  this  and  much  more  is  freely  set  down  to  the 
discredit  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists.  But  Bragg's  in 
vasion  only  elicits  the  following  reflection : 

"The  battle  of  Perry ville,  which  made  the  retreat  of  Bragg 
an  imperative  necessity,  came  three  weeks  after  the  defeat  of 
Lee  at  Antietam.  It  was  necessary  that  the  Confederates 
should  win  in  both  these  hazards  in  order  that  their  cause 
should  succeed.  In  both  cases  the  result  was  the  sullen 
retreat  of  the  Confederate  forces  into  their  strongholds.  Their 
enemies  were  checked,  but  not  broken,  and  the  Federal  forces 
were  not  able  to  give  a  crushing  pursuit  to  the  forces  they  had 
beaten  back.  Far  better  than  the  Northern  armies,  the  troops 
of  the  Confederacy  withstood  the  trials  of  a  defeat." 

Shaler  says  he  was  a  Unionist,  but  he  finds  many  a 
derogatory  word  for  those  of  his  own  side,  while  he  dis 
misses  Bragg's  invasion  of  Kentucky  to  gather  spoils, 
and  conscript  Kentucky  Unionists,  with  no  word  but  a 
compliment. 

Having  considered  the  invasion  on  the  Confederate 
side,  it  is  proper  to  notice  some  of  the  features  of  the 
Federal  side. 

It  has  been  stated  that  General  Bragg  knew  that  there 


218  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

were  no  troops  in  Kentucky  that  could  resist  the  great 
invasion.  Such  was  the  case.  When  General  Buell 
heard  that  Kirby  Smith  had  moved  in  toward  Lexing 
ton,  he  dispatched  General  Nelson  to  Louisville  to  look 
after  the  defence.  Nelson  went  on  to  Lexington,  and, 
collecting  the  few  troops,  fought  a  most  unequal  battle  at 
Richmond,  and,  being  defeated,  returned  to  Louisville 
and  organized  all  the  troops  obtainable,  to  the  number 
of  between  30,000  and  40,000,  all  that  could  be  rallied 
from  every  direction.  Nelson  was  killed  in  a  personal 
difficulty  by  a  brother  officer  on  the  2Qth  of  September. 

It  should  be  stated  that  on  the  i8th  of  August  Gov 
ernor  Magoffin,  finding  that  he  was  in  no  way  in  accord 
with  the  Legislature  or  the  people  of  Kentucky,  resigned 
his  office,  and  the  Speaker  of  the  Senate,  James  F. 
Robinson,  became  Governor  in  his  stead.  In  less  than 
two  weeks,  August  3 1st,  the  entire  State  government 
removed  hastily  from  Frankfort  to  Louisville,  on  account 
of  the  approach  of  Kirby  Smith's  troops.  At  Louisville 
the  Legislature  resolved  that  the  invasion  must  be 
resisted  and  repelled  by  all  the  power  of  the  State.  At 
the  same  time  Governor  Robinson  issued  the  following 
proclamation : 

"  FRANKFORT,  KY.,  August  31,  1862. 
"  To  THE  PEOPLE  OF  KENTUCKY: 

"A  crisis  has  arisen  in  the  history  of  the  Commonwealth, 
which  demands  of  every  loyal  citizen  of  Kentucky  prompt  and 
efficient  action.  The  State  has  been  invaded  by  an  insolent 
foe;  her  honor  is  sullied,  her  peace  disturbed,  and  her 
integrity  imperiled.  The  small  and  gallant  army  raised  upon 
the  emergency  of  the  occasion  for  her  defence,  under  the 
brave  and  chivalric  Nelson,  has  met  with  a  temporary  reverse, 
and  the  enemy  is  advancing  for  the  accomplishment  of  his 
purpose — the  subjugation  of  the  State.  He  must  be  met  and 
driven  from  our  border,  and  it  is  in  your  power  to  do  so.  I 
therefore,  as  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth,  deem  it  my 
duty  to  call  upon  every  loyal  citizen  of  Kentucky  to  rally  to 


Bragg's  Invasion  of  Kentucky        219 

the  defence  of  the  State.  Not  a  moment  is  to  be  lost.  I 
appeal  to  you  as  Kentuckians,  as  worthy  sons  of  those  who 
rescued  the  dark  and  bloody  ground  from  savage  barbarity, 
by  the  memories  of  the  past  of  your  history  and  by  the  future 
of  your  fame,  if  you  are  but  true  to  yourselves,  to  rise  in  the 
majesty  of  your  strength,  and  drive  the  insolent  invader  of 
your  soil  from  your  midst.  Now  is  the  time  for  Kentuckians 
to  defend  themselves.  Each  man  must  constitute  himself  a 
soldier,  arm  himself  as  best  he  can,  and  meet  the  foe  at  every 
step  of  his  advance.  The  day  and  the  hour,  the  safety  of 
your  homes  and  firesides,  patriotism  and  duty,  alike  demand 
that  you  rush  to  the  rescue,  I  call  upon  the  people  then  to 
rise  up  as  a  man  and  strike  a  blow  for  the  defence  of  their 
native  land,  their  property,  and  their  homes.  Rally  in  the 
standard  wherever  it  may  be  nearest,  place  yourselves  under 
the  commanders,  obey  orders,  trust  to  your  own  right  arm 
and  the  God  of  battle,  and  the  foe  will  be  driven  back,  dis 
comfited  and  annihilated. 

"To  Arms!  To  Arms!  and  never  lay  them  down  till  the 
Stars  and  Stripes  float  in  triumph  throughout  Kentucky. 

"I  but  perform  my  duty  in  thus  summoning  you  to  the 
defence  of  your  State,  and   I   am   assured   that    it    will    be 
promptly  responded  to.    I  promise  that  I  will  share  with  you 
the  glory  of  the  triumph  which  surely  awaits  you. 
"  Done  in  the  city  of  Frankfort  this  3ist  day  of  August,  1862. 

4 '  By  the  Governor,  JAMES  F.  ROBINSON. 

"D.  C.  WICKLIFFE, 

"Secretary  of  State." 

Such  was  the  answer  Kentucky  made  to  the  pro 
clamation  of  the  leaders  of  the  invasion,  who  called 
upon  the  people  to  rise  and  emancipate  themselves  from 
their  own  chosen  adhesion  to  the  Union,  and  to  rally  to 
the  support  of  a  cause  which  they  repudiated. 

In  response  to  the  call  of  the  Governor,  the  Kentucky 
Unionists  were  rallying  to  the  regiments  already  in  the 
field,  and  other  new  regiments  were  formed.  Eleven 
new  regiments  were  organized.  The  State  militia  filled 


220  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

up  the  Home  Guard  companies,  and  thousands  flocked 
to  the  points  of  danger,  especially  to  Louisville,  to  put 
themselves,  as  the  Governor  urged,  "under  the  com 
manders  and  obey  orders." 

General  Bragg  lamented  the  apathy  of  the  Kentuckians 
and  their  indifference  to  his  appeal  to  rise  and  throw  off 
the  yoke  of  despotism,  but  Governor  Robinson's  procla 
mation  did  not  fall  upon  heedless  ears. 

In  the  testimony  of  General  Boyle  before  the  Buell 
Court  of  Inquiry,  he  says  that  when  he  first  heard  of  the 
advance  of  Kirby  Smith  he  had  in  Kentucky  only  about 
2000  troops.  He  says  he  called  for  troops  from  every 
body;  that  they  increased  so  rapidly  he  could  not 
approximate  the  number,  amounting  at  last  to  forty  or 
fifty  thousand.  The  sources  from  whence  this  aggregation 
came  can  be  understood  in  his  answer  to  the  question, 
"What  would  have  been  the  effective  force?  "  He  could 
not  tell;  "the  men,"  says  he,  "marched  from  camp  on 
the  edge  of  the  city  for  the  purpose  of  review  and  to 
learn  how  to  march  and  to  handle  their  guns.  Large 
numbers  broke  down.  I  believe  they  were  all  new  regi 
ments."  (War  Records,  series  I,  vol.  16,  p.  371.) 

General  Granger  testifies  of  thirty-six  or  thirty-seven 
thousand  raw  recruits  at  Louisville.  (/£.,  p.  428.) 

In  other  parts  of  the  State  there  was  a  similar  rally  to 
the  defence  against  the  invasion. 

When  this  spirit  of  the  Kentucky  people  is  con 
sidered  and  compared  with  the  insignificant  number 
which  responded  to  the  call  of  General  Bragg,  all  ques 
tions  as  to  their  stand  are  conclusively  settled.  General 
Bragg  made  a  report  a  few  days  after  the  battle  of  Perry  - 
ville,  in  which  he  uses  this  language  : 

"The  campaign  here  was  predicated  on  the  belief  and  the 
most  positive  assurances  that  the  people  of  this  country  would 
rise  in  mass  to  assert  their  independence.  No  people  ever  had. 
so  favorable  an  opportunity,  but  I  am  distressed  to  add  that 


Bragg's  Invasion  of  Kentucky        221 

there  is  little  or  no  disposition  to  avail  of  it.  Willing,  per 
haps,  to  accept  their  independence,  they  are  neither  disposed 
nor  willing  to  risk  their  lives  or  their  property  in  its  achieve 
ment.  With  ample  means  to  arm  20,000  men  and  a  force  with 
that  to  fully  redeem  the  State,  we  have  not  as  yet  issued  half 
of  the  arms  left  us  by  casualties  incident  to  the  campaign." 

The  largest  estimate  of  Kentuckians  who  availed 
themselves  of  this  opportunity  to  enter  the  Confederate 
service  is  5000,  but  Shaler,  after  investigation,  puts 
the  number  at  2500.  (P.  320.) 

Instead  of  rallying  to  Bragg,  they  were  rushing  into 
Union  regiments  all  through  the  summer  and  fall  of 
1862. 

The  Kentucky  regiments  which  had  been  organized  in 
the  summer  and  fall  of  1861  were  either  with  Buell's 
army,  or  with  Grant,  proceeding  down  the  Mississippi 
toward  Vicksburg.  Those  that  were  with  Buell,  being 
over  thirty,  made  the  long  and  rapid  march  from  the 
southern  part  of  Tennessee  to  Louisville  in  the  months 
of  August  and  September.  The  season  was  dry  and  hot. 
Water  was  scarce  and  the  dust  intolerable.  The  march 
from  Elizabethtown  to  Louisville,  forty-three  miles,  was 
made  in  twenty- four  hours.  Resting  a  few  days,  the  move 
was  to  Perryville.  Eight  Kentucky  regiments  were  there 
engaged,  notably  the  Fifteenth  Infantry,  which  lost 
heavily,  Colonel  Curran  Pope  being  mortally  wounded, 
Lieutenant-Colonel  George  P.  Jouett  and  Major  William 
P.  Campbell  killed;  also,  Lieutenants  McClure  and 
McGrath  and  sixty-three  men  killed  and  two  hundred 
wounded. 

Among  the  killed  in  the  battle  of  Perryville  was  Gen 
eral  James  S.  Jackson,  a  native  of  Lexington,  but  v/ho 
had  removed  to  Hopkinsville  to  practise  law  in  that  place. 
He  had  served  as  a  lieutenant  in  the  Mexican  War.  He 
had  been  elected  to  Congress  in  June,  1861,  but  resigned 
his  seat  and  went  home  to  enter  the  military  service  on 


222  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

behalf  of  the  Union  cause.  He  raised  and  led  the  Third 
Kentucky  Cavalry  until  August,  1862,  when  he  was 
made  Brigadier-General,  and  in  that  capacity  he  was  serv 
ing  at  the  time  of  his  death.  It  is  proper  to  quote 
here  what  was  said  of  this  sad  event  by  Colonel  John  W. 
Forney,  the  Philadelphia  editor: 

"  To  die  such  a  death  and  for  such  a  cause  was  the  highest 
ambition  of  a  man  like  James  S.  Jackson.  He  was  the  highest 
type  of  the  Kentucky  gentleman.  To  a  commanding  person 
he  added  an  exquisite  grace  and  suavity  of  manner,  and  a 
character  that  served  to  embody  the  purest  and  noblest 
chivalry.  He  was  a  Union  man  for  the  sake  of  the  Union, 
and  now  with  his  heart's  blood  he  has  sealed  his  devotion  to 
the  flag.  He  leaves  a  multitude  of  friends  who  will  honor  his 
courage  and  patriotism  and  mourn  his  untimely  and  gallant 
end." 

A  singular  series  of  events  occurred  just  preceding  and 
during  the  invasion  of  Bragg,  in  connection  with  the 
State  government  at  Frankfort,  and  the  bogus  "pro 
visional  government"  which  had  been  devised  at  Russell- 
ville.  On  the  i6th  of  August,  1862,  Governor  Magoffin 
signified  his  intention  to  resign,  being  entirely  out  of 
harmony  with  all  of  his  surroundings.  The  office  of 
Lieutenant-Governor  being  vacant,  the  Speaker  of  the 
Senate,  John  W.  Fisk,  would  succeed  him.  Fisk,  how 
ever,  resigned  his  office  in  order  that  James  F.  Robinson 
might  be  made  Governor,  which  was  done  August  i8th. 
This  change  is  duly  noted  in  Collins's  Annals,  and  in  less 
than  two  weeks  thereafter  this  entry  appears : 

"August  31,  Sunday  night,  the  Legislature  meets  in  extraor 
dinary  session,  attends  to  the  usual  routine  of  business,  and 
agrees  to  adjourn  (out  of  tender  consideration  and  respect  for 
the  Confederate  army  now  approaching  uncomfortably  near) 
to  meet  in  the  Court  House  at  Louisvile  on  Tuesday, 
September  2." 


Bragg's  Invasion  of  Kentucky         223 

Thus  Collins  notes,  in  somewhat  gleeful  style,  the 
sudden  removal  of  the  whole  State  government  from 
Frankfort  on  account  of  the  great  invasion. 

Then,  one  month  and  four  days  after,  the  following 
entry  appears : 

"  Oct.  4.  Inaugural  ceremonies  of  the  provisional  govern 
ment  of  Kentucky,  at  Frankfort.  Richard  Hawes,  of  Bourbon, 
inaugurated  Governor  and  in  an  address  tells  the  listen 
ing  crowd  that  'the  State  would  be  held  by  the  Confederate 
army,  cost  what  it  might,'  a  statement  and  assurance  uttered 
in  perfect  good  faith,  and  which  his  proud  and  honorable  na 
ture  would  have  scorned  to  make,  had  he  suspected  that  the 
vacillating  General  Bragg  had  deceived  him,  and  that  the  Con 
federate  army  had  even  then  commenced  its  ill-advised  retreat. 
Four  hours  later  the  new  government  left  Franklin  in  dignified 
haste,  never  to  return." 

Thus  Collins  records  in  somewhat  doleful  style  the 
sudden  exit  from  Frankfort  of  the  "provisional  Gover 
nor  "  whose  credentials  were  from  the  governing  council 
named  at  Russellville  in  November,  1861,  and  which 
council  had  appointed  Richard  Hawes  Governor  of 
Kentucky  after  the  death  of  George  W.  Johnson,  who  fell 
at  Shiloh. 

Another  incident  of  the  invasion  was  the  extraordinary 
escape  of  the  Federal  troops  from  Cumberland  Gap. 
When  Kirby  Smith  moved  into  Kentucky  he  left  a  force 
to  capture  the  garrison  at  that  place,  which  was  com 
manded  by  General  George  W.  Morgan.  The  point  was 
literally  cut  off  from  all  aid,  and  the  country  without 
provisions.  Confederates  were  on  both  sides  of  the  Gap. 
Kirby  Smith's  and  Humphrey  Marshall's  forces  were  in 
Kentucky.  There  was  nothing  for  Morgan  to  do  but  to 
abandon  the  Gap  and  escape  if  he  could.  September 
i6th  the  retreat  was  commenced.  The  force  he  had 
was  the  Seventh  Kentucky  Infantry,  Colonel  Garrard ; 


224  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

the  Fourteenth  Kentucky  Infantry,  Colonel  Cochran ;  the 
Nineteenth  Kentucky  Infantry,  Colonel  Landrum;  the 
Twenty-Second  Kentucky  Infantry,  Colonel  D.  W. 
Lindsay  ;  Mundy's  Battalion  of  the  Sixth  Kentucky 
Cavalry,  and  Patterson's  company  of  engineers.  He  also 
had  with  him  the  First,  Second,  Third,  Fourth,  Fifth, 
and  Sixth  Tennessee  regiments  of  Unionists.  The  re 
treat  was  across  the  east  end  of  Kentucky  by  way  of  Man 
chester,  Booneville,  and  West  Liberty  to  Greenupsburg 
on  the  Ohio  River.  Perhaps  the  way  followed  the  line  of 
the  ancient  "  Warriors'  Path"  along  which  the  Indians 
had  travelled  long  before.  The  country  was  familiar  to 
Colonel  Garrard  and  his  mountain  men,  but  it  was  full  of 
Confederates.  Marshall  had  orders  to  intercept  the 
retreat,  and  General  John  Morgan's  cavalry  was  assisting. 
General  George  Morgan  says:  "Frequent  skirmishes 
took  place,  and  it  several  times  happened  that  while  one 
Morgan  was  clearing  out  obstructions  at  the  entrance  of 
a  defile  the  other  Morgan  was  blockading  the  exit."  In 
one  instance  a  road  had  to  be  cut  for  four  miles.  For 
this  work  he  had  one  thousand  men  under  the  super 
vision  of  Captain  William  F.  Patterson  and  his  com 
pany  of  engineers,  a  Kentucky  organization  which  had  a 
remarkable  career  throughout  the  war. 

The  retreating  force  crossed  Kentucky  River  at  Proc 
tor,  eluded  Marshall  at  West  Liberty,  made  a  feint 
toward  Maysville,  and  pushed  on  for  Greenupsburg, 
where  the  Ohio  was  reached  with  the  loss  of  only  eighty 
men.  Cumberland  Gap  had  been  captured  and  occupied 
by  General  George  W.  Morgan  on  the  iSthof  June,  1862. 
He  abandoned  it,  as  stated,  September  i6th.  For  a  year 
the  place  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Confederates.  In 
September,  1863,  it  was  retaken  by  a  Kentucky  officer, 
General  James  M.  Shackelford,  in  connection  with  Burn- 
side's  East  Tennessee  expedition  of  1863,  and  thence 
forth  was  held  by  the  Federal  forces. 


CHAPTER  XV 

MORGAN'S  RAIDS 

AS  this  work  is  not  intended  to  be  a  history  of  the 
war,  but  is  only  to  deal  with  the  services  of  the 
Kentucky  Unionists,  no  effort  will  be  made  to  describe 
all  the  military  operations  which  took  place  in  the  State. 
The  various  histories  of  the  war  have  set  forth  all  the 
larger  movements  and  this  will  not  be  attempted  here. 
But  in  order  to  show  what  were  the  services  of  the 
Kentucky  Unionists,  especially  those  who  enlisted  in 
the  various  regiments  and  in  the  Home  Guard  com 
panies,  it  is  necessary  to  mention  briefly  some  of  the 
military  operations.  Among  these  are  the  Morgan  raids. 
Many  of  Morgan's  followers  were  Kentuckians,  and  it 
was  natural  that  when  raiding  in  Kentucky  was  thought 
to  be  desirable,  it  was  carried  on  by  Morgan.  His  com 
mand  was  several  times  in  the  State,  and,  while  it  did 
damage  to  the  Federal  cause  in  many  ways,  it  is  a  remark 
able  fact  that  such  damage  would  have  been  far  greater 
except  that  he  was  met  and  turned  back  by  the  Union 
troops  of  Kentucky.  He  made  five  visits  to  his  own 
State,  and  every  time  the  visit  was  a  hurried  one.  Every 
time  he  was  compelled  to  retire,  and  conspicuous  among 
the  troops  which  he  either  encountered  or  escaped  from 
were  the  Union  troops  of  Kentucky.  General  Morgan's 
able  lieutenant,  General  Basil  W.  Duke,  has  written  a 
volume  detailing  the  exploits  of  his  chief,  and  in  order 
to  show  in  short  space  the  general  features  of  these 
15  225 


226  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Kentucky  raids,  the  headings  of  the  chapters  of  Duke's 
history  which  describe  operations  in  Kentucky  will  here 
be  given : 

"Chapter  8.  Reorganization  at  Chattanooga.  First  raid 
into  Kentucky.  Fight  at  Tompkinsville.  Capture  of  Leb 
anon.  Telegraph  strategy.  Morgan  master  of  the  situation. 
Fight  at  Cynthiana.  Evade  the  pursuing  troops. 

"Chapter  10.  Again  on  the  march  for  Kentucky.  The 
Confederate  army  enters  the  State.  Service  in  front  of  Lex 
ington.  Efforts  to  embarrass  the  retreat  of  Federal  General 
Morgan.  Fight  at  Augusta.  Retreat  of  the  army  from 
Kentucky.  Captures  Lexington. 

"Chapter  n.  Morgan's  retreat  through  Southwestern 
Kentucky.  At  Gallatin  again.  Scouting  and  ambuscades. 
Driven  from  Gallatin.  A  week's  fighting  around  Lebanon 
(Tenn.).  Battle  of  Hartsville. 

"  Chapter  12.  December  raid  into  Kentucky.  Capture  of 
Elizabethtown.  Fight  at  the  Rolling  Fork.  Escape  from 
the  toils. 

"  Chapter  13.  Service  during  the  winter  of  1863-4.  Clark's 
raid  into  Kentucky.  Battle  of  Milton.  Defeat  at  Snow  Hill. 

"Chapter  14.  Service  in  Tennessee,  and  on  the  Cumber 
land  River  in  Kentucky.  Fight  at  Greasy  Creek.  Active 
scouting.  The  Division  starts  for  Ohio.  Crossing  the 
Cumberland  in  face  of  the  enemy.  Fight  at  Columbia,  Green 
River,  and  Lebanon.  Crossing  the  Ohio.  The  militia  object 
ing.  Fight  with  the  gunboats.  March  through  Indiana  and 
Ohio.  Detour  around  Cincinnati.  Defeat  at  Buffington. 

"Chapter  16.  Services  of  the  remnant  of  Morgan's  com 
mand  while  the  General  was  in  prison.  Reception  of  General 
Morgan  by  the  people  of  the  South.  He  is  assigned  to  com 
mand  in  Southwestern  Virginia.  Fight  with  Averill.  Action 
at  Dublin  Depot.  Last  raid  into  Kentucky.  Capture  of  Mt. 
Sterling.  Severe  engagement  next  day.  Capture  of  Lexing 
ton.  Success  at  Cynthiana.  Retreat  from  Kentucky." 

It  thus  appears  that  every  chapter  records  evading  or 
escaping  pursuers,  or  else  defeat  or  retreat. 


Morgan's  Raids  227 

The  first  raid  made  by  Morgan  into  Kentucky  occurred 
in  July,  1862.  His  report  is  found  in  War  Records,  series 
i,  vol.  1 6,  pt.  i,  p.  767.  His  troops  were  his  own  regi 
ment  and  a  regiment  of  Georgia  partisan  rangers,  a 
squadron  of  Texans,  and  two  companies  of  Tennesseeans. 
He  entered  Kentucky  near  Glasgow,  moved  up  to  Leb 
anon,  and  thence  through  Harrodsburg,  Lawrenceburg, 
Versailles,  Georgetown,  Paris,  and  Winchester,  to  Rich 
mond.  On  the  way  he  encountered  no  force  that  was 
sufficient  to  resist  his  progress.  The  mention  of  the 
Home  Guards  is  insignificant.  At  one  place  they  at 
tacked  him.  At  another  they  undertook  to  oppose,  but 
fled.  At  another  he  took  seventy  of  them  prisoners. 
He  did  not  go  to  Frankfort,  the  capital  of  the  State, 
because  he  learned  there  was  a  force  there  "of  2000  or 
3000  men  consisting  of  Home  Guards  collected  from  the 
adjacent  counties,  and  a  few  regular  troops."  He  says 
he  "  dispersed  about  1500  Home  Guards."  He  men 
tions  being  "welcomed  with  gladness,"  but  says  nothing 
of  any  flocking  to  his  standard.  Having  arrived  at 
Richmond,  he  says: 

' '  I  had  determined  to  make  a  stand  at  Richmond  and  await 
reinforcements,  as  the  whole  people  appeared  ready  to  rise  and 
join  me,  but  I  received  information  that  large  bodies  of  cav 
alry  under  General  Clay  Smith  and  Colonels  Wolford,  Met- 
calfe,  Mundy,  and  Wynkoop  were  endeavoring  to  surround 
me  at  this  place,  so  I  moved  on  to  Crab  Orchard." 

At  Crab  Orchard  he  learned  of  orders  to  pursue 
him,  and  he  moved  on  through  Monticello  back  to 
Tennessee. 

Other  reports  show  that  the  troops  which  gathered  to 
oppose  Morgan  were  directed  by  General  J.  T.  Boyle, 
and  were  led  by  Colonels  Wolford,  Metcalfe,  Mundy, 
Landrum,  Hallisy,  Maxwell,  and  Guthrie,  all  Kentucky 
officers,  besides  the  organized  Home  Guards  under  Colo- 


228  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

nels  Wadsworth  and  Worthington  and  Captain  Faulkner. 
Thus,  the  first  raid  was  warded  off  from  the  capital  of 
the  State,  nor  did  it  reach  the  important  city  of  Lexing 
ton,  but  was  confined  to  a  passage  through  unimportant 
places.  Nor  could  he  "make  a  stand  to  await  reinforce 
ments,"  and  the  troops  thus  interfering  with  his  designs 
were  the  organized  Kentuckians. 

According  to  his  report,  he  was  in  the  State  more  than 
three  weeks,  and  augmented  his  force  by  only  500 
recruits,  which  was  an  inconsiderable  number  considering 
that  he  was  in  his  own  State  and  the  claims  of  being 
"welcomed  with  gladness,"  and  the  "readiness  of  the 
whole  people  to  rise  and  join  him,"  and  considering, 
further,  that  he  was  compelled  to  retire  from  Richmond 
for  fear  of  being  surrounded  by  Kentucky  Unionists, 
who  had  rallied  and  gathered  under  Kentucky  leaders  for 
that  purpose. 

The  second  time  Morgan  came  into  Kentucky  was  in 
the  same  summer  of  1862,  appearing  as  the  advance 
guard  of  the  great  invasion  under  Generals  Bragg  and 
Kirby  Smith.  There  were  no  troops  in  the  State  to 
resist  this  great  invasion,  and  for  two  months  a  con 
siderable  portion  of  Kentucky  was  occupied  by  the  Con 
federates.  Their  operations  were  confined  to  the  country 
lying  east  of  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad.  The 
events  of  this  invasion  have  been  considered  in  a  separate 
chapter.  In  this  place,  however,  it  will  be  recalled  that 
a  strong  demonstration  was  made  toward  Cincinnati  by 
General  Kirby  Smith's  forces,  and  that  numerous  troops 
gathered  to  protect  that  city.  One  of  the  incidents  in 
that  connection  was  the  design  of  a  portion  of  Morgan's 
troops  to  cross  the  Ohio  River  above  Cincinnati,  at 
Augusta,  Kentucky,  and  move  down  upon  the  city.  At 
Augusta  they  encountered  the  Union  Home  Guards 
under  Dr.  Joshua  T.  Bradford,  and  a  desperate  fight 
ensued.  The  design  of  crossing  the  river  was  frustrated. 


Morgan's  Raids  229 

Some  details  of  this  sanguinary  battle  are  given  in 
Collins' s  Kentucky,  vol.  i,  page  112. 

At  the  same  time  portions  of  Morgan's  command  under 
took,  in  conjunction  with  the  Confederate  force  which 
came  out  of  Virginia  under  General  Humphrey  Marshall, 
to  cut  off  the  retreat  of  General  George  W.  Morgan  from 
Cumberland  Gap.  That  incident  has  been  mentioned  in 
another  chapter,  but  it  is  proper  to  say  in  this  connection 
that  General  George  W.  Morgan  successfully  fought  his 
way  through,  and  that  half  of  his  command  consisted  of 
Kentucky  troops. 

It  is  well-known  history  that  after  the  battle  of 
Perryville,  on  the  8th  of  October,  1862,  the  larger  forces 
under  Generals  Bragg  and  Kirby  Smith  retreated  out 
of  Kentucky  through  the  mountains  of  East  Ten 
nessee,  obstructing  the  roads  behind  them  by  felling 
trees.  Morgan's  cavalry,  however,  made  their  way 
across  the  State  westwardly  as  far  as  Hopkinsville,  and 
thence  returned  to  Tennessee.  This  is  denominated  in 
General  Duke's  history  as  "Morgan's  Retreat  through 
Southwestern  Kentucky." 

A  conspicuous  feature  of  this  great  occasion  when 
Morgan  was  in  Kentucky  was  the  disappointment  the 
Confederates  received  over  their  reception.  Although 
great  Confederate  armies  were  in  the  State,  and  Morgan's 
cavalry  operated  from  the  mountains  to  the  west  end, 
and  although  a  great  part  of  the  State  was  controlled  by 
them  for  nearly  two  months,  it  does  not  appear  that  they 
materially  augmented  their  forces  by  Kentucky  volun 
teers.  The  people  were  called  upon  to  rise  and  join  their 
4 '  liberators, ' '  but  they  did  not  respond.  On  the  contrary, 
at  that  very  time  numerous  Union  regiments  formed 
and  organized,  which  thereafter  took  a  prominent  part  in 
repelling  future  raids.  The  Kentucky  people  were  ap 
pealed  to,  and  they  were  threatened  with  conscription. 
They  were  insensible  to  the  appeal  and  the  threat,  and 


230  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

forthwith  rallied  to  the  flag  of  the  Union  in  many  new 
regimental  organizations. 

Morgan's  third  raid  into  Kentucky  was  in  December 
of  the  same  year,  1862.  On  this  occasion  he  struck  the 
Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad  above  Munfordville  and 
proceeded  northward.  His  report  is  in  War  Records,  series 
I,  vol.  20,  p.  154.  He  says  that  "just  as  his  rear  regiments 
were  crossing  Rolling  Fork,  a  large  force  of  the  enemy — 
consisting  of  cavalry  and  several  pieces  of  artillery  which 
had  followed  us  from  Elizabethtown — came  up  and  began 
to  shell  the  ford  at  which  the  troops  were  crossing."  In 
the  fight  which  ensued  Colonel  Basil  Duke  was  disabled. 
"Colonel  Breckinridge  then  took  command  and  main 
tained  the  position  until  Colonel  Clark's  regiment  had 
crossed  the  river,  when  I  ordered  him  to  fall  back,  which 
he  accomplished  in  good  order  and  without  loss."  That 
night  Morgan's  command  reached  Bardstown.  The  next 
night  it  was  at  Springfield.  There  he  learned  of  "vastly 
superior  forces"  gathering,  and  it  was  but  a  short  time 
when  he  crossed  Cumberland  River  at  Burkesville,  and 
was  out  of  the  State. 

We  now  turn  to  the  report  of  Colonel  John  M.  Harlan 
in  the  same  volume,  page  137,  and  there  ascertain  who 
it  was  that  halted  Morgan's  expedition  at  Rolling  Fork. 
When  Harlan  learned  of  Morgan's  expedition  against  the 
Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad  he  was  at  Gallatin, 
Tennessee.  He  obtained  a  train  of  a  few  cars  and  pro 
ceeded  up  the  road  with  all  expedition.  In  his  com 
mand  were  the  Thirteenth  Kentucky  Infantry,  Major 
Hobson;  the  Twelfth  Kentucky  Cavalry,  Colonel  Shanks; 
the  Fourth  Kentucky  Infantry,  Colonel  Croxton ;  the 
Tenth  Kentucky  Infantry,  Lieutenant-Colonel  Hays. 
Colonel  Harlan  says  in  his  report  that  he  came  upon 
the  enemy  at  Rolling  Fork,  and 

"  from  a  high  hill  I  saw  quite  distinctly  a  very  large  body  of 


Morgan's  Raids  231 

cavalry  formed  in  line  of  battle  near  the  river.  Their  officers 
were  riding  along  their  line,  apparently  preparing  to  give  us 
battle.  Knowing  that  Morgan  had  a  larger  force  than  I  had, 
I  proceeded  cautiously,  and  yet  as  expeditiously  as  the  nature 
of  the  ground  and  the  circumstances  admitted.  My  men  were 
formed  in  two  lines.  Skirmishers  were  thrown  out  from  both 
infantry  and  cavalry,  covering  our  whole  front,  and  were 
ordered  to  advance  and  engage  the  enemy,  the  whole  line  fol 
lowing  in  close  supporting  distance.  The  firing  commenced 
on  the  part  of  the  rebels  on  our  left.  It  was  promptly  and 
vigorously  responded  to  by  my  skirmishers  and  the  artillery. 
After  a  while  the  rebels  were  driven  away  and  they  then  made 
some  demonstrations  to  occupy  an  eminence  on  my  right.  To 
meet  this  movement  the  Tenth  Indiana,  Colonel  Carroll,  was 
ordered  to  occupy  that  eminence,  from  which  four  companies 
were  ordered  to  clear  the  woods  on  the  right  of  my  line.  The 
Fourth  Kentucky,  Colonel  Croxton,  Fourteenth  Ohio,  Colo 
nel  Este,  Seventy-Fourth  Indiana,  Colonel  Chapman,  were 
ordered  to  form  on  the  left  of  the  Tenth  Indiana.  A  section 
of  the  battery  was  ordered  to  occupy  the  eminence,  and  the 
Tenth  Kentucky,  Colonel  Hays,  ordered  to  support  it.  This 
left  the  Thirteenth  Kentucky,  Major  Hobson,  on  my  left,  sup 
porting  the  section  of  the  battery  stationed  there.  The  firing 
now  became  general  all  along  the  right  of  our  line  of  skirmish 
ers,  but  the  rebels,  after  an  obstinate  resistance,  broke  and  fled 
precipitately  in  every  direction.  Some  struck  out  into  the 
woods,  some  went  up  the  river  as  far  as  New  Haven,  some 
swam  the  river  with  their  horses.  Further  pursuit  that  even 
ing  was  impracticable,  and,  I  may  say,  impossible  in  the 
exhausted  state  of  my  men,  they  having  left  Munfordville 
Sunday  morning  and  came  up  with  the  enemy  the  succeeding 
day  at  one  o'clock — 43  miles  distant." 

Colonel  Harlan  further  says  in  his  report : 

"I  claim  for  my  command  that  it  saved  the  Rolling  Fork 
bridge,  and  most  probably  prevented  any  attempt  to  destroy 
the  bridge  at  Shepherdsville,thus  saving  from  destruction  prop 
erty  of  immense  value,  and  preventing  the  utter  destruction 


232  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

of  the  line  of  railway  by  which  our  army  at  Nashville  is  mainly 
supplied.  And  I  submit  whether  the  attack  on  Morgan's  forces, 
the  timely  arrival  of  my  command  at  Rolling  Fork,  did  not 
prevent  a  raid  upon  other  important  points  in  Kentucky.  It  is 
very  certain  that  after  my  command  drove  the  rebel  chieftain 
across  the  Rolling  Fork  in  such  a  precipitate  manner,  he 
abandoned  the  railroad,  and  very  soon  thereafter  fled  from  the 
State,  hotly  pursued  by  other  forces." 

The  "other  forces"  mentioned  were  under  command  of 
Colonel  William  A.  Hoskins,  of  the  Twelfth  Kentucky 
Infantry.  His  report  is  in  the  same  volume,  page  141. 
He  mentions  as  in  his  command  a  squadron  of  the  Sixth 
Kentucky  Cavalry,  under  Major  Gratz;  a  squadron  of  the 
Ninth  Kentucky  Cavalry  under  Major  Rue.  The  Twelfth 
Kentucky  Infantry  and  a  portion  of  the  Sixteenth  Ken 
tucky  Infantry  also  joined  in  the  pursuit,  but  it  was  easy 
for  a  retreating  cavalry  force  to  escape,  and  it  did  so,  not 
staying  to  continue  further  work  of  destruction. 

Thus  for  the  third  time  Morgan  was  met  by  Kentucky 
troops,  and,  as  stated  in  the  headings  of  General  Duke's 
twelfth  chapter,  "escaped  from  the  toils." 

Colonel  Harlan's  prompt  and  expeditious  movement 
up  the  railroad  all  the  way  from  Tennessee,  and  his 
attack  at  Rolling  Fork,  ended  the  raid  and  turned  it  into 
a  retreat.  His  success  is,  as  usual,  attributed  to  "over 
whelming  numbers."  He  had  with  him  such  men  of  his 
brigade  as  could  be  hurried  to  the  point,  and  Shaler  says 
Morgan's  force  was  3000.  Harlan  says  in  his  report 
that  he  knew  Morgan  had  a  larger  force  than  his  own. 
Yet  Shaler,  to  account  for  the  discomfiture  of  Morgan 
and  the  checking  of  the  raid,  says  Morgan  was  attacked 
by  "about  seven  thousand  Federal  troops."  (P.  327.) 
He  does  not  mention  Colonel  Harlan  nor  does  he  tell  that 
Morgan  retreated  rapidly  out  of  the  State  pursued  by 
other  Kentucky  troops.  Shaler 's  work  is  a  History 
of  Kentucky ,  but  to  him  the  Confederates  constituted 


Morgan's  Raids  233 

Kentucky  in  the  war  period,  excepting  as  he  names  the 
Union  commanders  for  purposes  of  censure. 

The  fourth  raid  of  Morgan  into  Kentucky  was  the 
celebrated  one  which  extended  into  Indiana  and 
Ohio. 

About  the  1st  day  of  July,  1863,  Morgan  crossed  the 
Cumberland  River  at  Burkesville,  and  proceeded  north 
wardly  through  Columbia  to  Lebanon;  thence,  turning 
westwardly,  passed  through  Springfield  and  Bardstown, 
and  on  to  the  Ohio  River  at  Brandenburg,  where  he 
crossed,  and  proceeded  through  Indiana  and  Ohio  until 
captured. 

Nothing  is  shown,  by  any  reports,  to  have  been  accom 
plished  by  this  raid.  Collins  in  his  history  calls  it 
"startling  in  its  conception,  masterly  and  terrible  in  its 
progress  and  execution,  but  fatally  disastrous  in  its 
results."  (Vol.  i.,  p.  127.)  What  it  was,  except  a  long 
ride  ending  in  capture,  is  not  shown  in  any  reports.  No 
important  place  was  touched,  and  nothing  was  effected 
except  the  excitement  incidental  to  such  a  passage 
through  the  country.  Nor  was  it  favorably  commented  on 
by  the  Confederate  authorities. 

The  raid  has  always  been  called  "remarkable."  But 
it  is  a  fact  susceptible  of  the  clearest  demonstration  that 
the  pursuit  of  Morgan  was  far  more  remarkable  than  the 
raid.  The  telegram  announcing  the  capture  of  Morgan 
was  from  General  J.  M.  Shackelford,  a  distinguished 
Kentucky  officer,  and  dated  July  26,  1863.  Shackelford's 
official  report,  made  a  few  days  after,  tells  briefly  the 
story  of  the  pursuit.  (War  Records,  series  I,  vol.  23,  pt. 
I,  p.  639.)  General  E.  H.  Hobson,  another  distinguished 
Kentucky  officer,  who  was  the  ranking  officer  in  the 
pursuit,  also  made  his  report.  (Ibid.  p.  658.)  These 
reports  relate  the  facts,  though  they  have  never  been 
carried  into  the  histories  of  Kentucky  which  treat  of  the 
raid.  The  usual  silence  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists 


234  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

touching  their  services  in  the  war,  which  has  been 
mentioned,  is  applicable  in  this  instance. 

In  Collins's  Kentucky  (vol.  i.,  p.  126)  a  short  account 
is  given  of  the  raid,  in  which  it  appears  that  when  Morgan 
had  reached  the  vicinity  of  Cincinnati,  "Brigadier-Generals 
Edward  H.  Hobson  and  James  M.  Shackelford,  and 
Colonel  Frank  Wolford,  with  the  First,  Third,  Eighth, 
Ninth,  Eleventh,  and  Twelfth  Kentucky  Cavalry,  and  per 
haps  other  Federal  troops,  are  following  close  after  Mor 
gan,  but  do  not  seem  to  gain  much  on  his  extraordinary 
travelling  speed  and  endurance."  Shaler  adds  nothing  to 
what  Collins  says.  Both,  however,  condemn  the  Federal 
officers  for  not  recognizing  a  "peculiar  surrender  "  which 
Morgan  made  to  a  "  militia  captain,"  who  was  not  a 
militia  captain,  or  even  a  militia-man,  but  in  fact  noth 
ing  but  a  citizen  who  was  in  Morgan's  custody  at  the 
time. 

Some  details  of  the  pursuit  will  here  be  given. 

When  it  became  known  that  Morgan  was  threatening 
to  advance  into  Kentucky  General  Shackelford  was  at 
Russellville.  He  took  his  command  to  Glasgow  at  once, 
June  26th.  From  thence  he  proceeded  to  Marrowbone, 
ten  miles  from  Burkesville,  which  is  on  the  Cumberland 
River,  and  his  force  united  with  that  of  General  Hobson, 
which  had  moved  down  from  Columbia.  Before  the 
troops  were  aware  of  it,  Morgan  crossed  the  Cumberland 
at  Burkesville,  and  moved  rapidly  toward  Columbia.  He 
fought  unsuccessfully  at  Green  River  Bridge  July  4th, 
crossed  the  stream  at  another  place  and  went  on  to 
Lebanon,  where  he  encountered  a  portion  of  a  regiment 
under  Colonel  Charles  S.  Hanson,  a  Kentucky  officer. 
He  was  not  again  delayed  in  his  movements  until  he 
reached  the  Ohio  River. 

From  Marrowbone,  Shackelford's  and  Hanson's  com 
mands  followed  the  track  of  Morgan  through  Columbia  to 
Lebanon.  Without  delay  the  two  officers  passed  on 


Morgan's  Raids  235 

through  Springfield  and  Bardstown  and  reached  Branden 
burg  soon  after  Morgan  crossed  the  Ohio.  They  imme 
diately  crossed  at  the  same  place  and  the  pursuit  went  on 
through  Indiana  and  Ohio. 

The  troops  which  have  been  mentioned  were  the  princi 
pal  part  of  the  forces — the  First,  Eighth,  Ninth,  Eleventh, 
and  Twelfth  Kentucky  Cavalry,  and  a  portion  of  the 
Third  Kentucky  Cavalry.  The  First  Kentucky  Cavalry 
was  led  by  Colonel  Wolford,  the  Eighth  by  Colonel 
Benjamin  H.  Bristow,  the  Ninth  by  Colonel  R.  T.  Jacob, 
the  Eleventh  by  Colonel  Holeman,  the  Twelfth  by  Colonel 
Eugene  Crittenden,  the  Third  Cavalry  by  Major  Wolfley. 
At  first  there  were  some  infantry,  but  they  could  not 
follow  in  pursuit.  Some  other  regiments  of  cavalry,  in 
cluding  the  Eighth  and  Ninth  Michigan,  under  command 
of  Colonel  W.  P.  Sanders,  a  Kentucky  officer,  joined  the 
pursuers  in  Indiana,  they  having  moved  rapidly  to  Madi 
son,  Indiana,  from  the  central  part  of  Kentucky. 

The  troops  under  Shackelford  and  Hobson  which 
started  from  the  Cumberland  River  were  the  ones  which 
ran  down  the  great  raider  and  captured  him.  They 
were  Kentucky  regiments  mainly.  Their  leaders  were 
well-known  Kentuckians — Shackelford,  Hobson,  Jacob, 
Bristow,  Crittenden,  Wolford,  Holeman,  W.  O.  Boyle, 
Sanders,  Ward,  Wolfley.  General  Shackelford  in  his 
report  thus  mentions  the  officers  of  his  command : 

"Colonel  Kautz,  who  commanded  the  Seventh  and  Second 
Ohio,  Colonel  Jacob,  Ninth  Kentucky,  Colonel  Crittenden 
and  Major  Delfosse,  of  the  Twelfth  Kentucky,  Colonel  Bristow 
and  Lieutenant-Colonel  Holloway,  and  Major  Starling,  of  the 
Eighth  Kentucky,  Major  Wolfley,  of  the  Third  Kentucky, 
Lieutenant-Colonel  Adams,  of  the  First  Kentucky,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  Melton  of  the  Second  E.  Tenn.  Infantry,  Major  Car 
penter,  Second  E.  Tenn.  Infantry,  Lieutenant-Colonel  Ross, 
Forty-fifth  Ohio  Mounted  Infantry,  Captain  Powers  and 
Lieutenant  Longfellow  of  the  Fifth  Indiana  Cavalry,  Captain 


236  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Dodd,  Third  Ohio  Cavalry,  Captain  Kinney,  Third  Ohio, 
Captain  Ward,  Third  Kentucky  Cavalry,  and  Adjutant  Car 
penter  of  the  First  Kentucky  Cavalry,  deserve  the  gratitude 
of  the  whole  country  for  their  energy  and  gallantry.'* 

In  his  report  of  the  capture  of  Morgan  and  Morgan's 
claim  to  have  surrendered  on  terms  to  a  "militia 
captain,"  Shackelford  says  he  told  Morgan 

"  that  we  had  followed  him  thirty  days  and  nights;  that  his 
demand  could  not  be  considered  a  moment;  that  I  regarded 
his  surrender  to  the  militia  captain  under  such  circumstances 
as  not  only  absurd  and  ridiculous,  but  unfair  and  illegal,  and 
that  I  would  not  recognize  it  at  all." 

The  manner  of  the  surrender  to  the  "militia  captain" 
is  given  in  a  communication  of  Governor  Tod  of  Ohio  to 
General  Morgan  (War  Records,  series  I,  vol.  23,  pt.  I,  p. 
814),  in  which  he  says: 

"Said  Burbick  is  not  and  never  was  a  militia  officer  in 
the  service  of  this  State;  that  he  was  captured  by  you 
and  travelled  with  you  some  considerable  distance  before 
your  surrender." 

Burbick's  statement  to  the  same  effect  is  found  in  the 
same  volume,  p.  809,  in  which  he  says: 

"I  was  captain  of  no  militia  whatever,  or  any  other 
force  of  men,  but  was  appointed  that  Sunday  morning  as 
Captain  by  the  men  that  went  out  with  me  on  horseback, 
there  being  some  fifteen  or  twenty  in  number." 

If  the  capture  had  been  by  some  fresh  troops  springing 
into  the  chase  from  some  impossible  source,  it  would  not 
have  been  so  remarkable.  But  such  was  not  the  case. 
The  captors  were  the  men  who  started  on  the  pursuit  at 
Burkesville,  on  the  Cumberland  River.  As  soon  as  they 
could  assemble  for  the  purpose,  they  moved  on  the  track 
Morgan  had  taken,  up  through  Columbia  and  Lebanon, 
on  through  Springfield  to  Bardstown.  They  could  not 
divine  that  so  extraordinary  a  thing  would  occur  as  the 


Morgan's  Raids  237 

passage  of  the  Ohio  River.  They  naturally  looked  for 
the  chase  to  be  southwestwardly  through  Kentucky. 
When  word  came  that  Morgan  had  gone  to  Brandenburg 
and  was  crossing  the  river,  a  push  was  made  to  arrive 
there  before  the  crossing  was  effected.  They  were  not  in 
time,  and  there  was  nothing  to  do  but  to  follow  on  through 
Indiana.  They  crossed  at  the  same  place  and  pushed 
on,  following  the  course  Morgan  took.  Where  it  would 
lead  to  they  could  not  guess,  but  without  halt  or  rest  the 
pursuit  continued.  Day  and  night  they  rode;  horses 
and  men  gave  out  but  others  closed  up,  and  Shackel- 
ford  gave  no  respite.  Indiana  was  crossed  and  then  Ohio, 
and  on  the  far  side  of  the  last  named  State  at  last  the 
pursuers  gained  upon  the  pursued.  At  first  they  gathered 
up  many  stragglers,  then  they  came  upon  the  main  body, 
passed  beyond  it  by  side  roads,  turned,  and  enveloped  the 
greater  part  of  the  command. 

Morgan  himself  had  passed  on  further,  but  the  pursuit 
made  no  halt.  At  last  he  was  run  down  and  captured 
with  the  remaining  men.  This  was  nine  hundred  miles 
from  the  point  of  starting.  Morgan  had  made  a  great 
ride,  accomplished  nothing,  and  was  a  prisoner.  The 
Union  regiments  of  Kentucky,  with  their  indomitable 
leaders,  had  made  a  greater  ride,  run  down  Morgan  and 
his  men,  and  captured  them,  making  the  pursuit  far 
more  remarkable  than  the  raid. 

Without  extending  this  account  further  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  troops  which  made  that  capture  rode  from  Rus- 
seliville  and  other  points  to  Burkesville,  where  Morgan 
crossed  Cumberland  River,  and  from  thence  followed  the 
pursuit.  They  were  close  upon  Morgan  at  the  Ohio  River. 
Then  with  hard  riding,  night  and  day,  across  the  States 
of  Ohio  and  Indiana,  they  at  last  outrode,  turned  upon 
the  pursued,  surrounded  them,  and  captured  them.  It 
is  claimed  for  Morgan  that  at  one  point  he  made  ninety 
miles  in  thirty-five  hours.  If  this  is  true,  what  must  have 


238  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

been  the  riding  capacity  of  the  pursuers  who  succeeded  in 
overtaking  a  force  moving  so  rapidly  ? 

A  just  consideration  of  the  whole  incident  makes  it  clear 
that  the  pursuit  was  more  remarkable  than  the  raid. 
Thus  for  the  fourth  time  Morgan  was  discomfited  by  the 
Union  soldiers  of  Kentucky. 

The  fifth  and  last  raid  of  Morgan  into  Kentucky  was 
made  in  the  summer  of  1864.  Having  escaped  after  his 
capture,  he  was  given  a  command  in  southwestern  Vir 
ginia,  and  in  the  month  of  June,  1864,  he  entered  Ken 
tucky  through  Pound  Gap,  in  the  Cumberland  range,  and 
moved  rapidly  in  the  direction  of  Lexington.  General 
Burbridge,  in  anticipation  of  such  a  movement,  was  mak 
ing  his  way  toward  Pound  Gap.  In  the  command  of 
General  Burbridge  was  Colonel  John  Mason  Brown,  one 
of  the  most  energetic  and  intelligent  officers  in  the  service. 
He  was  commanding  a  brigade  in  which  was  his  own  reg 
iment,  the  Forty-fifth  Kentucky.  Colonel  Brown  ascer' 
tained  that  Morgan  had  entered  the  State  and  was  headed 
for  the  central  parts.  He  counselled  a  rapid  return,  which 
at  once  commenced,  Brown  leading  the  advance.  By 
moving  with  extraordinary  rapidity,  making  ninety  miles 
in  twenty-four  hours,  the  Federal  troops  began  to  come 
up  with  Morgan.  On  the  I2th  day  of  June  Morgan  had 
advanced  toward  Georgetown,  and  sent  a  force  ahead 
to  capture  Frankfort  and  secure  a  crossing  of  Kentucky 
River  by  the  bridge  at  that  point,  but  this  force  was  met 
by  a  company  of  State  troops  and  one  or  two  companies 
of  enrolled  militia  hastily  called  out  by  the  Adjutant-Gen 
eral,  D.  W.  Lindsay ;  and  Morgan,  finding  that  his  cross 
ing  at  Frankfort  would  be  seriously  resisted,  deflected 
to  Cynthiana,  where  the  Federal  troops  under  Bur- 
bridge,  Brown,  and  Hanson — all  Kentucky  officers  —fell 
upon  him,  and  practically  broke  up  his  entire  com 
mand,  capturing  many  and  driving  the  wreck  of  his 
force  out  of  the  State  through  the  mountains.  The 


Morgan's  Raids  239 

Kentucky  regiments  thus  engaged  were  as  follows :  Thir 
teenth  Cavalry,  Thirty-fifth  Mounted  Infantry,  Forty- 
fifth  Mounted  Infantry,  Fortieth  Mounted  Infantry, 
Forty-seventh  Mounted  Infantry,  Twenty-sixth  Mounted 
Infantry,  Thirtieth  Mounted  Infantry,  Eleventh  Cavalry, 
Thirty-seventh  Mounted  Infantry,  Thirty-ninth  Mouated 
Infantry. 

Collins  says  of  this  event: 

"Part  of  Morgan's  forces  escaped  through  Scott  County, 
while  he  led  the  main  force,  after  paroling  some  600  prisoners 
taken  on  the  loth,  on  the  Clayville  and  Augusta  road  through 
Mayslick,  Mason  County,  on  the  same  night,  and  Flemings- 
burg  on  the  next  morning.  His  raid  proved  exceedingly 
disastrous."  (Vol.  i.,  p.  135.) 

General  Bragg,  in  a  report  dated  July  2d,  says: 

"The  accounts  received  so  far  do  not  indicate  any  satisfac 
tory  results  of  the  movement  into  Kentucky  by  General  Morgan. 
Should  he  ever  return  with  his  command  it  will  as  usual  be 
disorganized  or  unfit  for  service  until  again  armed,  equipped, 
and  disciplined.  The  large  number  of  prisoners  we  always  lose 
by  these  raiding  expeditions  has  been  the  source  of  great 
evil." 

Morgan  says  in  his  official  report  that  his  intention  was 
to  break  the  railroad  from  Cincinnati  to  Lexington,  and 
then  strike  for  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad. 
(War  Records,  Serial  No.  77,  p.  65.) 

Thus  for  the  fifth  time  Morgan's  plans  were  defeated, 
and  he  was  driven  from  the  State  by  the  organized 
regiments  of  Kentucky  Unionists.  Kentucky  troops 
frustrated  his  purpose  to  destroy  the  railroads  in  central 
Kentucky  and  then  pass  on  and  destroy  the  Louisville 
and  Nashville  Railroad,  and  forced  him  back  before  he 
accomplished  anything. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  in  this  volume  to  deal  with  any  of 
the  conduct  of  Morgan  and  his  men,  but  only  to  show  that, 


240  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

while  historians  have  heralded  his  exploits  as  so  ex 
traordinary,  in  every  instance  when  he  raided  his  own 
State,  having  with  him  men  who  knew  the  roads  every 
where,  he  was  met  and  successfully  resisted  by  the 
Unionists  of  Kentucky.1 

The  purpose  is  to  show  that  the  noted  raider,  whose 
reputation  has  been  exalted  by  such  historians  as  Shaler, 
was  met  and  handled  by  the  men  of  his  own  State,  whose 
services  have  not  seemed  to  be  worthy  of  mention  in  the 
biased  minds  of  these  writers. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  troops  which  could  be 
rallied  to  contend  with  Morgan  in  Kentucky  were 
detained  in  the  State  simply  for  that  purpose.  They  had 
to  deal  with  other  raiders,  and  bands  of  partisan  rangers, 
any  and  all  of  whom  would  appear  upon  the  scene  unex 
pectedly,  and  troops  were  constantly  on  the  alert  to  pro 
tect  the  State  from  the  whole  combination.  Nor  must 
it  be  supposed,  when  several  regiments  of  Kentucky 
Union  soldiers  are  named  as  engaging  in  some  special 
conflict,  that  the  number  of  regiments  represents  that 
many  thousand  troops.  The  regiments  were  broken  up 
into  detachments,  operating  in  many  different  places, 
and  when  the  regiment  is  mentioned  it  was  a  fact  in 
nearly  all  cases  that  only  a  portion,  perhaps  only  a  frag 
ment,  was  present.  For  this  reason  the  presence  of 
quite  a  number  of  regiments  by  name  might  be  indicated 
without  making  the  "overwhelming  numbers"  so  often 
mentioned  by  the  historians,  to  account  for  the  defeat 
of  the  Confederate  enterprises. 

Shaler  and  others  who  have  written  the  histories  of 
Kentucky  adopt  the  claims  made  for  the  superior  prowess 
of  Confederate  troops  and  record  them  as  historic  facts,  but 
when  the  records  of  the  war  are  examined  it  is  found 
that  for  courage  and  endurance  and  efficiency  no  soldiers 

1  War  Records,  Serial  No.  77,  pp.  74  to  84. 


Morgan's  Raids  241 

could  excel  those  who  made  up  the  Union  organizations 
in  Kentucky.  Nor  were  there  any  leaders  more  vigilant 
and  persistent,  or  who  led  troops  with  more  energy  and 
enthusiasm  and  devotion,  than  the  Union  generals  of 
Kentucky  and  the  officers  of  these  organizations.  It  is 
not  history  but  sentiment  that  would  seek  to  exalt  the 
qualities  of  soldiership  of  either  side  in  the  conflict  over 
the  other,  and  when  the  facts  according  to  the  records 
are  considered  no  such  distinction  appears  to  have 
existed. 
16 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE   GUERRILLA   EVIL 

IT  is  necessary  to  mention  with  some  detail  the  char 
acter  and  work  of  guerrillas  in  Kentucky  during  the 
war,  especially  toward  the  end,  in  order  to  remove  the 
impression  made  on  many  minds  by  writers  of  so-called 
history  that  the  Kentucky  Unionists,  in  one  way  or  an 
other,  were  responsible  for  a  very  deplorable  condition  of 
affairs  which  existed. 

Great  consideration  was  shown  to  Kentucky  by  the  au 
thorities  at  Washington  in  the  selection  of  officers  for 
local  command  in  the  State.  General  Robert  Anderson 
of  Sumter  fame  was  a  Kentuckian,  and  the  first  officer 
placed  in  charge,  General  William  Nelson,  was  also  a  Ken 
tuckian.  In  July,  1862,  General  J.  T.  Boyle  was  placed 
in  command  of  the  District  of  Kentucky.  He  was  one 
of  the  most  distinguished  citizens  of  the  State,  the  son 
of  one  of  her  greatest  judges,  well  acquainted  with  the 
people,  and  most  highly  esteemed.  Other  Kentucky  offi 
cers  were  kept  on  duty  in  the  State,  and  in  the  sections 
where  they  were  best  known.  Among  these  were  Gen 
eral  E.  H.  Hobson,  General  J.  M.  Shackelford,  General 
S.  S.  Fry,  General  E.  H.  Murray ;  also,  Colonels  Charles 
H.  Hanson,  T.  B.  Fairleigh,  Marc  Mundy,  Cicero  Max 
well,  John  Mason  Brown,  John  H.  Ward,  Saunders 
Bruce,  were  at  different  times  assigned  to  commands  in 
the  State.  The  administration  of  military  affairs  was 
thus  largely  entrusted  to  men  well  knovn  and  of  the 
highest  character.  On  the  I5th  of  February  General  S. 

242 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  243 

G.  Burbridge  was  placed  in  command  of  the  district. 
He  had  made  a  fine  reputation  as  a  soldier  in  the  field, 
and  no  officer  was  more  highly  regarded.  He  raised  the 
Twenty-sixth  Kentucky  Infantry  and  led  it  as  Colonel  until 
made  General.  He  commanded  a  brigade  in  1862  when 
General  Bragg  entered  Kentucky;  was  in  like  command 
under  General  Sherman  at  Chickasaw  Bayou,  under 
Grant  at  Vicksburg,  and  under  Banks  afterward.  He 
was  a  native  of  Logan  County,  Kentucky,  and  his  ap 
pointment  was  regarded  as  eminently  appropriate. 

During  his  administration  of  affairs  the  work  of  guer 
rillas  in  Kentucky  was  so  active,  and  so  much  trouble 
was  given  by  them,  he  was  ordered  to  deal  with  them 
and  their  aiders  and  abettors  and  sympathizers  with  great 
severity.1  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  great  major 
ity  of  the  people  of  Kentucky  were  Unionists.  From 
the  Union  homes  the  young  men  had  gone  out  as  Union 
soldiers,  leaving  their  homes  without  protection.  There 
fore,  we  naturally  find  an  order  of  General  Grant  to  Bur- 
bridge,  beginning  as  follows : 

"That  habit  of  raiding  parties  of  rebel  cavalry  visiting 
towns,  villages,  and  farms  where  there  are  no  Federal 
forces,  pillaging  Union  families,  having  become  preva 
lent,"  etc.  (directions  being  then  given  to  abate  the  evil). 

Not  only  did  these  raiding  parties  mistreat  the  Union 
population  of  Kentucky,  but  made  war  upon  isolated 
bodies  of  Union  troops,  government  stores,  railroads, 
bridges,  and  all  persons  and  property  in  any  wise  con 
nected  with  or  used  by  the  Federal  forces. 

Burbridge's  rough  handling  of  these  raiders  and  their 
aiders  and  abettors  brought  down  upon  him  the  maledic 
tions  of  the  Confederate  element  in  Kentucky,  which 
never  did  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  war  come 
to  realize  that  the  Union  side  was  rightfully  in  control  in 

1  See  Appendix,  §  18,  p.  253. 


244  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Kentucky,  but  always  acted  as  though  they  believed 
Kentucky  was  a  Confederate  State,  and  that  the 
Unionists  were  intruders. 

It  would  require  a  volume  to  deal  with  the  administra 
tion  of  Burbridge  in  detail.  He  published  his  own  defence 
against  what  he  called  "  vituperation  heaped  upon  his 
head,"  in  which  he  copied  the  orders  under  which  he 
acted.  He  also  published  reports  of  various  Confederate 
officers  charging  each  other  with  bad  conduct  and  denying 
that  he  had  done  wrong. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  to  enter  into  any  controversy 
about  Burbridge  in  this  work,  but  it  is  necessary  to  show 
with  what  a  desperate  enemy  it  was  his  fortune  to  have 
to  deal,  in  order  to  explain  the  situation  in  which  others 
were  placed  as  well  as  he. 

The  principal  complaint  against  Burbridge  was  that  he 
put  in  practice  retaliatory  measures,  and  caused  men  to  be 
shot  for  the  killing  of  Unionists  by  guerrillas.  Retalia 
tion  is  one  of  the  incidents  of  all  wars.  It  was  practised 
on  both  sides  in  our  great  struggle,  and  it  is  one  of  the 
saddest  features  of  war.  Jefferson  Davis,  in  his  history, 
tells  how  he  directed  "that  Major-General  Hunter  and 
Brigadier-General  Phelps  should  be  no  longer  held  and 
treated  as  public  enemies  of  the  Confederate  States,  but 
as  outlaws,"  to  be  held,  if  captured,  for  execution  as 
felons. 

He  also  says  he  declared  General  Ben.  F.  Butler  a  felon, 
to  be  no  longer  treated  as  a  public  enemy,  but  "a  felon 
deserving  capital  punishment,"  and  in  the  event  of  his 
capture  the  officer  in  command  should  cause  him  to  be 
immediately  executed  by  hanging." 

"  These  measures  of  retaliation,"  says  Mr.  Davis,  "were 
in  conformity  with  the  usages  of  war  and  were  adopted 
to  check  and  punish  the  cruelty  of  the  adversary."1 

1  See  Appendix,  §  19,  p.  354. 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  245 

Burbridge  was  practising  retaliation,  and  was  acting 
under  the  orders  of  his  superiors,  and  it  may  be  said  of 
his  measures,  as  well  as  those  adopted  by  Mr.  Davis,  that 
they  were  "to  check  and  punish  the  cruelty  of  the  adver 
sary."  The  language  is  as  applicable  to  the  one  case 
as  to  the  other. 

Burbridge  found  the  State  of  Kentucky  full  of  guerril 
las — absolutely  overrun  by  them.  He  caused  captured 
men  who  had  been  engaged  in  guerrilla  operations  to  be 
taken  to  the  spot  where  the  Unionists  were  killed  and 
there  executed.  He  could  not  have  taken  any  but 
avowed  Confederate  soldiers,  if  he  took  any  at  all,  for 
every  guerrilla  captured  claimed  to  be  in  the  Confederate 
service,  not  excepting  even  the  notorious  Sue  Mundy 
(Jerome  Clark).  (Collins,  i.,  157.) 

The  complaint,  therefore,  would  be  much  more  justly 
made  against  the  principle  of  retaliation  which  both  sides 
practised  than  against  any  particular  officer  who  carried 
out  the  practice  which  Mr.  Davis  says  was  "in  conformity 
with  the  usages  of  war."  If  retaliation  is  inseparable 
from  a  condition  of  war,  it  only  goes  to  show  what  cruel 
ties  and  hardships  belong  to  such  condition,  and  ought 
to  serve  to  deter  men  from  rushing  too  hastily  into  war. 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  Burbridge  was  the 
only  Federal  officer  in  Kentucky  charged  with  offences 
at  the  time,  and  by  the  writers  of  history  since. 

From  the  beginning  it  was  charged  that  Kentucky  was 
under  military  despotism.  Every  Federal  officer  in  con 
trol  was  made  out  to  be  unworthy  for  some  reason. 
Abuse  was  heaped  upon  all  without  discrimination,  and 
these  ill-tempered  criticisms  of  the  war  period  have  been 
duly  reiterated  by  the  writers  of  history. 

Shaler  says : 

"The  Federal  commanders  had  undertaken  to  regulate  a 
great  many  matters  that  did  not  properly  concern  them.  The 


246  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

principal  offender  was  Brigadier-General  Boyle,  of  Louisville, 
commmanding  the  Provost  Guard  forces  in  Kentucky.  This 
man  was  much  more  vigorous  in  his  dealings  with  citizens  than 
with  soldiers,  and  for  a  time  carried  a  high  hand  as  a  tyrant  in 
Kentucky." 

He  also  says  (p.  320) : 

"The  action  of  men  like  Boyle  did  a  great  deal  to  turn 
many  men  against  the  Federal  authority.  They  had 
entered  on  the  war  to  preserve  the  laws  that  these  cheap 
brigadiers  treated  with  contempt." 

General  Boyle  preceded  General  Burbridge.  Shaler 
characterizes  Burbridge  as  brutal.  Burbridge  was  suc 
ceeded  by  General  John  M.  Palmer,  of  Illinois,  a  Ken- 
tuckian  by  birth,  and  an  honorable  man  and  officer.  Yet 
Shaler  says  of  Palmer  that,  "though  he  fell  under  the 
same  influences  which  had  guided  Burbridge  in  his  course, 
he  never  disgraced  his  calling."  *  He  says  General 
C.  C.  Gilbert  was  guilty  of  a  high-handed  outrage  at 
one  time,  and  that  "  greatly  to  the  disgrace  of  the 
Union  arms"  Shackelford  refused  to  observe  John  Mor 
gan's  surrender  to  a  man  although  he  was  in  fact  no 
officer,  nor  even  a  military  man. 

In  such  manner  a  writer  of  history,  echoing  the  intem 
perate  speeches  made  in  the  anger  of  the  hour,  carries 
them  into  the  printed  page  and  into  the  shelves  of  the 
libraries  of  the  country,  and  thus  blackens  the  character 
of  the  Union  men  of  Kentucky  who  struggled  through 
appalling  difficulties  to  uphold  the  Union  and  the  cause 
of  our  country,  while  he  has  only  words  of  extravagant 
praise  for  John  Morgan  and  all  his  men,  and  all  other 
Confederates. 

The  unjust  comments  of  Shaler  are  not  founded  upon 
any  record.  Shaler  is  quoted  in  Smith's  History,  but 
when  the  documentary  history  of  the  war  is  examined, 

1  See  Appendix,  §  20,  p.  355. 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  247 

and  when  even  Collins's  laboriously  gathered  "annals" 
are  examined,  no  foundation  for  these  comments  is  found. 

As  another  instance  of  Shaler's  echoing  the  bitter  talk 
of  the  war  instead  of  writing  history,  he  is  especially 
severe  on  the  Federal  provost  marshals.  Nothing 
appears  upon  any  record  against  them,  but  doubtless 
there  were  oral  criminations,  as  there  were  about  every 
possible  phase  of  Federal  control  in  the  State  of 
Kentucky.  His  language  is: 

"There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  people  of  Kentucky 
endured  far  more  outrage  from  the  acts  of  the  Federal 
provost  marshals  than  they  did  from  all  the  acts  of 
legitimate  war  put  together."  (P.  353.) 

Shaler  also  places  the  Union  Home  Guards  of  Ken 
tucky  on  the  same  plane  with  guerrillas,  the  sole  basis 
being  that  in  one  item  of  Collins's  Annals  it  is  stated  that 
General  Burbridge  issued  an  order  to  his  troops,  including 
the  Home  Guards,  against  committing  outrages,  as  had 
been  reported.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  commanders  to 
issue  such  orders,  and  for  this  one  instance  Shaler  accuses 
the  Home  Guards,  who  were  remarkably  well  behaved, 
and  really  had  no  charges  against  them,  according  to  the 
records,  of  being  so  bad  as  to  be  classed  with  guerrillas. 

The  injustice  of  such  history  makes  it  necessary,  there 
fore,  to  show  who  the  guerrillas  were,  who  made  such  a 
desperate  condition  of  affairs  in  Kentucky;  also,  to  show 
what  they  did,  and  this  will  be  done  from  citations  from 
the  authentic  records,  and  also  from  Collins's  Annals. 

Great  efforts  have  been  made  to  make  it  appear  that 
the  guerrillas  who  infested  Kentucky  during  the  war 
belonged  to  one  side  as  well  as  the  other.  They  have 
been  called  "deserters  from  both  sides,"  and  "freeboot 
ers"  from  the  ranks  of  the  Unionists  as  well  as  Confeder 
ates.  It  is  easy  to  write  words  down,  and  easy  to  say 
anything,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  records  upon  which 
to  base  the  statement.  On  the  other  hand,  the  authori- 


248  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

ties  are  abundant  that  the  guerrillas  were  acting  under 
the  authority  of  the  Confederate  government.  They 
were  called  out,  organized,  and  sent  out  for  the  purpose 
of  damaging  the  Union  cause.  They  made  war  on 
Unionists,  and  upon  Union  soldiers,  and  upon  the  prop 
erty  of  the  Federal  government.  One  writer,  whose 
object  was  to  show  up  General  Burbridge  as  a  "miscreant 
of  all  colors,"  said  that  Burbridge  "chose  to  assume  that 
the  guerrilla  bands  were  acting  under  the  orders  and 
receiving  the  protection  of  the  Confederate  commanders." 
The  same  writer  pays  a  high  tribute  to  Governor  Thomas 
E.  Bramlette,  as  a  man  of  great  intellectual  force, 
courage,  and  fairness.  Yet  it  was  Governor  Bramlette 
who  issued  a  proclamation  holding  all  "  rebel  sympa 
thizers"  responsible  for  guerrilla  raids.  He  requests  the 
military  commandants  in  the  State  to  arrest  and  hold 
responsible  "rebel  sympathizers,"  when  guerrilla  out 
rages  are  perpetrated.  The  historian  Collins  denounces 
this  for  its  severity,  saying,  "It  is  a  sad  state  of  things 
that  suggests,  and  sadder  still  that  tolerates,  such  unwar 
rantable  assumptions  of  executive  power."  Yet  this  was 
Governor  Bramlette's  proclamation.  (Collins,  vol.  i., 
p.  130.) 

We  may  as  well  give  this  proclamation  of  Governor 
Bramlette  in  full.  It  is  as  follows : 

'*  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT, 
FRANKFORT,  KY.,  Jan.  4,  1864. 

"  The  frequent  outrages  perpetrated  in  various  parts  of  the 
State  by  lawless  bands  of  marauders  can  in  large  degree  be 
traced  to  the  active  aid  of  rebel  sympathizers  in  our  midst,  as 
their  neglect  to  .furnish  to  military  commandants  the  informa 
tion  in  their  possession  which  would  lead  to  the  defeat  and 
capture  of  such  marauders. 

"  Sympathizers  with  the  rebellion  who,  while  enjoying  pro 
tection  from  the  government,  abuse  the  leniency  extended  to 
them  by  concealing  the  movements  of  rebel  guerrillas,  by 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  249 

giving  them  information,  affording  them  shelter,  supplying 
them  with  provisions,  and  otherwise  encouraging  and  foment 
ing  private  raids,  are  in  criminal  complicity  with  all  the  out 
rages  perpetrated  by  the  marauders  whom  they  secretly 
countenance. 

"  It  is  in  the  power  of  persons  whose  sympathies  are  with  the 
rebellion  to  prevent  guerrilla  raids  almost  invariably,  by 
furnishing  to  military  officers  of  the  United  States  or  State  of 
Kentucky  the  information  which  experience  has  proved  them 
to  be,  as  a  general  thing,  possessed  of. 

"  If  all  would  unite,  as  is  their  duty,  in  putting  down  guer 
rillas,  we  would  soon  cease  to  be  troubled  with  their  raids. 
A  neglect  to  afford  all  assistance  and  information  which 
may  aid  in  defeating  the  designs  of  marauding  parties  can 
but  be  construed  as  a  culpable  and  active  assistance  to  our 
enemies. 

"  I  therefore  request  that  the  various  military  commandants 
in  the  State  of  Kentucky  will,  in  every  instance  where  a  loyal 
citizen  is  taken  off  by  bands  of  guerrillas,  immediately  arrest 
at  least  five  of  the  most  prominent  and  active  rebel  sympa 
thizers  in  the  vicinity  of  such  outrage,  for  every  loyal  man 
taken  by  guerrillas.  These  sympathizers  should  be  held  as 
hostages  for  the  safe  and  speedy  return  of  the  loyal  citizen. 
Where  there  are  disloyal  relatives  of  guerrillas,  they  should  be 
the  chief  sufferers.  Let  them  learn  that  if  they  refuse  to  exert 
themselves  actively  for  the  assistance  and  protection  of  the 
loyal,  they  must  expect  to  reap  the  just  fruits  of  their  complic 
ity  with  the  enemies  of  our  own  State  and  people." 

The  term  "partisan  ranger"  was  often  used  in  the 
records  of  the  period  interchangeably  with  the  term 
' ' guerrilla. ' '  Both  had  the  same  object  in  view ;  and  that 
object  was  the  injury  of  everybody  and  everything  per 
taining  to  the  Union  cause.  Those  who  care  nothing  for 
the  records  which  were  made  during  the  war,  and  who 
write  and  speak  unsupported  assertions  for  facts,  cannot 
make  history  by  so  doing.  The  history  of  the  guerrillas  of 


250  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

our  Civil  War  is  found  in  the  records  of  the  Confederate 
Congress,  in  the  communications  made  by  the  Confeder 
ate  leaders,  and  in  other  documents  of  that  period. 
Extracts  from  these  will  be  given,  enough  to  establish  the 
fact  that  partisan  rangers  and  guerrillas  were  expressly 
authorized  by  the  Confederate  authorities;  that  they 
were  expressly  sent  out  to  do  precisely  that  which  the 
guerrillas  in  fact  did;  that  the  Confederate  commanders 
used  the  terms  " partisan  rangers"  and  "guerrillas"  inter 
changeably;  that  under  these  designations  these  bands 
made  war  upon  the  cause  of  the  Union. 

It  will  be  shown  that  the  work  mapped  out  for  and 
undertaken  by  the  "partisan  rangers"  was  precisely  that 
which  the  guerrillas  were  engaged  in  doing  in  Ken 
tucky.  They  were  "independent  and  separate  com 
mands,"  commissioned  to  go  forth  in  "guerrilla"  bands, 
to  operate  in  the  enemy's  lines,  including  Kentucky, 
where  they  did,  in  fact,  operate  so  extensively.  It 
would  be  puerile  to  contend  that  they  were  to  operate 
upon  friend  and  foe  alike,  and  equally  puerile  to  contend 
that  they  were  sent  out  for  any  other  purpose  than  to 
infest  the  country,  and  do  all  the  damage  they  could. 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  was  so  much  just  complaint 
against  these  authorized  "rangers,"  made  by  high  officers 
in  the  Confederacy,  on  various  grounds,  that  the  Con 
federate  Congress  passed  an  act  repealing  the  act  of 
authorization,  with  the  proviso,  however,  that  such  bands 
as  were  operating  "within  the  enemy's  lines"  were  not 
to  be  discontinued — showing  plainly  that  the  evil  of  the 
ranger  or  guerrilla  warfare  was  so  detrimental  to  the  Con 
federate  country  it  had  to  be  stopped,  but  that  Kentucky 
might  continue  to  suffer  under  it. 

It  will  appear,  too,  that  the  Confederate  authorities 
issued  orders  to  correct  the  irregularities  of  the ' '  rangers, 
excepting  those  "serving  within  the  enemy's  lines." 

One  of  the  hardest  tasks  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  251 

during  the  war  was  to  protect  themselves  and  the  State 
of  Kentucky  from  the  raids  and  lawlessness  of  these  Con 
federate  guerrillas,  or,  as  they  were  universally  called  in 
the  war  time,  "rebel  guerrillas."  The  Kentucky  Union 
ists  in  regularly  organized  regiments,  and  in  regularly 
organized  Home  Guard  companies,  made  unceasing  war 
on  guerrillas.  They  pursued  and  ran  them  down  and 
captured  them,  and  so  effectually  was  the  work  done  that 
all,  or  nearly  all,  of  the  notorious  leaders  were  killed. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  shown  by  any  records  of 
the  period  that  any  roving  guerrilla  bands  were  authorized 
by  the  State  of  Kentucky  or  by  the  general  government. 
It  cannot  be  shown  by  any  record,  Federal  or  Confederate, 
that  there  were  any  "Union  guerrillas,"  and  the  effort 
to  lay  upon  the  Union  Home  Guards  of  Kentucky  blame 
like  that  universally  laid  upon  the  "rebel  guerrillas"  can 
not  be  supported  by  any  records  of  the  day. 

The  following  quotations  make  clear  who  the  guerril 
las  were.  Many  more  of  like  nature  might  be  made,  but 
these  are  deemed  sufficient : 

"ADJUTANT  AND  INSPECTOR-GENERAL'S  OFFICE, 

"  RICHMOND,  June  18,  1861. 
"F.  A.  BRISCOE,  ESQ., 

"  Winchester,  Va. 

SIR: — In  reply  to  your  letter  of  June  12,  1861,  to  Mr.  F.  A. 
Baldwin,  in  relation  to  organizing  a  guerrilla  force,  I  am 
directed  to  say  that  such  a  force  when  organized,  armed,  and 
equipped  will  be  received  into  service,  and  commissions  issued 
to  the  officers  thereof  from  this  office  so  soon  as  advised  of 
compliance  with  foregoing  requirements.  I  am,  Sir, 

"  Respectfully, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"R.  H.  CHILTON, 
"Assistant  Adj.  Genl." 
(War  Records,  Serial  No.  127,  p.  395.) 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  from  William 


252  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Skeen,   written  to  the  Confederate  Secretary  of   War, 
from  Warm  Springs,  Virginia,  June  30,  1861 : 

"  When  I  had  the  honor  of  an  interview  with  you  some  ten 
days  ago  upon  the  importance  of  establishing  a  guerrilla  serv 
ice  in  the  northwest,  I  understood  you  to  agree  with  the  views 
presented,  and  that  you  would  ask  the  concurrence  of  the 
President,  and  in  the  event  of  his  approbation,  that  the 
service  would  be  ordered.  Since,  I  have  waited  anxiously  a 
communication  from  you;  anxiously  because  as  a  citizen  of  the 
northwest  I  am  deeply  interested  not  only  in  defeating  the 
enemy  but  in  whipping  him  by  any  and  all  means  and  as 
speedily  as  possible."  (War  Records^  Serial  No.  127,  p.  415.) 

This  letter  was  answered  as  follows: 

"CONFEDERATE  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  WAR  DEP'T, 

"  RICHMOND,  July  15,  1861. 
"  WILLIAM  SKEEN,  ESQ., 

4 'Warm  Springs,  Va. 

"  SIR: — In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  30th  of  June  the  Secre 
tary  of  War  directs  me  to  say  that  a  battalion  raised  for  the 
war  and  armed  will  be  accepted,  but  not  otherwise. 

"Respectfully, 

"A.  T.  BLEDSOE, 
"Chief  of  Bureau  of  War, 

"byj.  B.  Jones." 
(/*.,  478.) 

On  the  1 3th  of  July,  1861,  B.  W.  Blakewood  wrote  to 
the  Confederate  Secretary  of  War,  saying: 

"Permit  me,  sir,  to  introduce  to  your  consideration  the 
advantages  that  would  accrue  from  a  regiment  of  mounted 
men  on  the  guerrilla  order." 

He  then  describes  the  kind  of  men,  and  says : 

"I  should  like  to  have  the  privilege  of  organizing  a  reg 
iment  on  the  above  plan."  (Ib.  475.) 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  253 

To  this  letter  the  following  answer  was  made  : 

"  CONFEDERATE  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  WAR  DEP'T, 

"  July  20,  1861. 
"CoL.  B.  W.  BLAKEWOOD, 

"  Spottswood  Hotel,  Richmond,  Va. 

"  SIR:  —  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  i3th  instant,  I  am 
directed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  say  that  a  regiment  armed 
and  equipped  would  be  accepted,  electing  its  own  field 
officers.  But  no  pledge  can  be  given  of  the  service  it  will  be 
required  to  perform  or  of  its  field  of  operations. 

"  Respectfully, 

"A.  T.  BLEDSOE, 
"  Chief  of  Bureau  of  War." 


It  might  be  supposed  by  those  who,  at  the  present 
time,  claim  to  hold  "guerrillas"  to  have  been  a  lot  of 
wretches,  "deserters  from  both  sides,"  and  "condemned 
by  both  sides,"  that  when  propositions  to  organize  "guer 
rilla"  regiments  or  companies  or  bands  were  made  to  the 
Confederate  authorities  they  would  have  been  indignantly 
spurned,  but  the  foregoing  correspondence  shows  the 
contrary,  and  the  following  is  to  the  same  effect  : 

"  BUTLER,  ChoctawCo.,  Ala.,  July  26,  1861. 
"  L.  P.  WALKER,  ESQ. 

"  DEAR  SIR:  —  Quite  a  number  of  men  of  undoubted  respect 
ability  are  anxious  to  serve  the  government  on  their  own 
account.  It  is  proposed  to  form  a  company  or  companies 
and  proceed  against  the  enemy  in  any  manner  that  will  cripple 
the  enemy  most,  and  do  our  government  most  service.  It  is 
further  proposed  in  forming  such  companies  and  in  going  to 
war,  in  order  to  sustain  such  companies,  to  seize,  take,  and 
convey  all  and  every  kind  of  property  captured  to  the  use  of 
such  companies.  In  other  words,  such  companies  propose 
going  and  fighting  without  restraint  and  under  no  orders,  and 
convey  the  property  so  captured  to  their  own  private  use, 
thereby  benefiting  their  own  pecuniary  circumstances,  as 


254  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

well  as  doing  their  own  country  good  service  by  crippling  the 
enemy." 

He  asks  if  this  would  be  allowed.  (  War  Records,  Serial 
No.  127,  p.  505.) 

Was  this  proposition  rebuked?  Was  there  an  indignant 
response  to  a  plan  so  utterly  sordid  and  villainous? 

The  following  is  the  respectful  and  encouraging  reply 
from  the  Confederate  War  Office : 

"  CONFEDERATE  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  WAR  DEP'T, 

44  RICHMOND,  Aug.  5,  1861. 
"  MR.  D.  M.  K.  CAMPBELL, 

"Butler,  Choctaw  Co.,  Ala. 

"  SIR: — In  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  26th  of  July, 
I  am  directed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  state  that  every 
citizen  who  can  wield  a  weapon  is  needed  now  for  the  defence 
of  this  invaded  country.  There  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt  that 
ample  opportunities  will  be  afforded,  both  with  policy  and 
necessity,  to  retaliate  in  a  legitimate  and  proper  manner  upon 
the  despoilers  of  our  people." 

Nevertheless,  the  letter  goes  on,  all  military  organiza 
tions  must  conform  strictly  to  the  laws  and  usages  of 
civilized  nations.  They  must  be  commissioned  and  paid 
by  the  government,  and  subject  to  its  orders,  in  complete 
subordination  to  its  authority.  The  letter  then  says : 

"It  is  true  there  is  too  much  reason  to  apprehend  the  most 
barbarous  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  Northern  aggressors — 
conduct  which  may  render  it  obligatory  on  our  part  to  treat 
them  with  the  utmost  severity — and  if  this  be  the  case  you 
would  have  abundant  opportunities  to  participate  in  the 
captures,  forfeitures,  and  confiscations  which  must  inevitably 
follow  in  the  train  of  such  a  conflict  inaugurated  by  the  enemy. 
Then  why  should  you  not  organize  a  corps  of  just  such 
avengers,  and  be  guided  in  all  things  by  the  wisdom  and 
impartial  adjudication  of  the  government  ?  I  would  therefore 
suggest  that  your  company  be  armed  and  tendered  for  the  war 
in  the  usual  way — not  doubting  that  opportunities  will  be 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  255 

afforded  for  the  exercise  of  the  undaunted  spirit  of  high-toned 
Southern  retribution  which  seems  to  have  inspired  your 
proposition."  (War  Records,  127^.532.) 

On  the  I  Qth  of  March,  1862,  there  seems  to  have  been 
a  change  in  the  manner  of  replying  to  propositions  to 
organize  such  independent  companies,  as  the  following 
appears  in  the  records  : 


"CONFEDERATE   STATES   OF   AMERICA,    WAR 

"RICHMOND,  Va.,  March  19,  1862. 
"DR.  R.  G.  BARKHAM, 

"Tarborough,  N.  C. 

"  SIR:  —  Guerrilla  companies  are  not  recognized  as  part  of  the 
military  organization  of  the  Confederate  States,  and  cannot  be 
authorized  by  this  department. 

''Respectfully, 

4*J.  P.  BENJAMIN, 
"  Acting  Secretary  of  War." 

(Same  March  2Oth  to  Captain  Samuel  P.  Gresham, 
Forty-seventh  Va.  Regiment,  Fredericksburg,  Va.  War 
Records,  127,  p.  1008.) 

Very  soon  after  this,  however,  the  Confederate  authori 
ties  were  expressly  authorized  to  employ  troops,  under 
the  designation  of  '  '  partisan  rangers,  "to  operate  after  the 
fashion  of  guerrillas.  So  identical  were  the  two  that 
sometimes  they  went  under  one  name  and  sometimes 
under  the  other. 

April  21,  1862,  The  Confederate  Congress  passed  an 
act  authorizing  the  President  to  commission  officers  "to 
form  bands  of  partisan  rangers,  in  companies,  battalions, 
or  regiments,  either  as  cavalry  or  infantry.  The  com 
panies,  battalions,  or  regiments  to  be  composed  each  of 
such  numbers  as  the  President  may  approve."  (War 
Records,  series  4,  vol.  I,  p.  1094.) 

July  13,  1862,  the  Governor  of  North  Carolina  wrote  to 
the  Confederate  Secretary  of  War  on  the  subject  of 


256  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

partisan  rangers,  mentioning  the  "  large  number  of 
partisan  rangers  authorized  or  claimed  to  be  authorized  " 
as  interfering  with  the  enrolment  of  conscripts.  He  says : 
"Partisan  rangers  have  a  kind  of  separate  and  independ 
ent  command  which  is  another  attraction,  and  I  might 
add,  a  source  of  detriment." 

July  29,  1862,  General  D.  H.  Hill,  of  the  Confederate 
army,  wrote  to  the  Confederate  Secretary  of  War  as 
follows : 

"I  cordially  recommend  the  raising  of  guerrilla  com 
panies  and  the  arming  of  them  by  the  government,  to 
operate  in  the  counties  of  Nansemond  and  Gates,  or 
wherever  the  infernal  Yankees  and  their  rascally  Dutch 
allies  can  be  found.  The  special  duties  of  the  guerrillas 
is  to  kill  the  murderers  and  plunderers  wherever  they  show 
their  villainous  faces." 

This  was  indorsed  by  the  Secretary  of  War : 

"Authorize  General  D.  H.  Hill  to  issue  authority  for 
companies  of  partisan  rangers  in  the  counties  of  Gates, 
N.  C.,  and  Nansemond,  Va.  Rolls  to  be  returned  to  the 
Adjutant-General  and  the  officers  commissioned.  No 
restrictions  as  to  age." 

April  2,  1862,  General  Heth,  of  the  Confederate  army, 
addressed  the  following  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia: 

"I  feel  it  my  duty  to  inform  you  of  certain  facts  arising  from 
the  organization  of  the  irregular  force  known  as  "rangers," 
authorized  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of  Virginia.  The 
companies  of  this  organization  which  have  come  under  my 
observation  are  simply  organized  bands  of  robbers  and 
plunderers,  stealing  the  thunder  of,  and  basing  their  claims  to 
organization  upon,  the  meritorious  acts  of  a  few  brave  men. 
The  parties,  or  many  of  them,  composing  the  organization,  are 
notorious  thieves  and  murderers,  more  ready  to  plunder 
friends  than  foes.  With  such  material  as  a  basis  it  would  be 
surprising  to  find  organization.  They  do  as  they  please — go 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  257 

where  they  please.  The  effect  of  this  organization  upon  the 
volunteering  has  been  very  injurious.  Many,  especially  the 
worthless,  like  the  privilege  of  fighting,  as  they  say,  on  their 
own  responsibility,  which,  interpreted,  means,  roaming  over 
the  country,  taking  what  they  want  and  doing  nothing.  The 
choice  arms  of  the  State  have  been  furnished  to  these  people. 
This  has  induced  many  to  believe  they  are  a  favored 
organization.  A  guerrilla  force  without  being  closely  watched 
becomes  an  organized  and  licensed  band  of  robbers.  Properly 
managed  in  small  parties,  they  are  very  efficient.  I  have  con 
templated  very  seriously  disarming  the  two  companies  now 
here  (Downs's  and  Spriggs's)  simply  as  an  act  of  protection  to 
the  good  citizens  of  this  county.  A  guerrilla  chief  should  be 
able  to  enforce  obedience  and  command  the  respect  of  his 
associates.  These  men  (Downs  and  Spriggs)  do  neither 
This  organization  has  become  a  loop  hole  through  which 
hundreds  are  escaping  draft,  and,  in  fact,  all  service.  I 
respectfully  invite  your  attention  to  the  matter,  convinced  as  I 
am  that  but  one  side  of  the  picture  has  been  presented  to 
you."  (War  Records,  series  i,  vol.  51,  pt.  2,  p.  526.) 

The  report  of  the  Confederate  Secretary  of  War, 
August  12,  1862,  mentions  partisan  rangers  thus: 

"  The  act  authorizing  bands  of  partisan  rangers  has  been 
carried  into  execution.  Apprehending  that  the  novelty  of 
the  organization  and  the  supposed  freedom  from  control  would 
attract  great  numbers  in  the  partisan  corps,  the  Department 
adopted  a  rule  requiring  a  recommendation  from  a  General 
commanding  a  department,  before  granting  authority  to  raise 
partisans.  Notwithstanding  the  restrictions,  there  is  reason  to 
fear  that  the  number  of  partisan  corps  greatly  exceed  the 
requirements  of  the  service,  and  that  they  seriously  impede 
recruiting  for  the  regiments  of  the  line.  (  War  Records,  series 
4,  vol.  2,  p.  48.) 

January   3,     1863,    Adjutant-   and    Inspector-General 
Cooper  made  a  report  to   President  Davis,  in  which  he 
mentions  partisan  rangers  as  follows : 
17 


258  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

"  The  policy  of  organizing  corps  of  partisan  rangers  has  not 
been  approved  by  experience.  The  permanency  of  their 
engagements,  and  the  consequent  inability  to  disband  and 
reassemble  at  call,  precludes  their  usefulness  as  mere  guerillas, 
while  the  comparative  independence  of  their  military  relations 
and  the  peculiar  rewards  allowed  them  for  captures  induce 
much  license  and  many  irregularities.  They  have  not  unfre- 
quently  excited  more  odium  and  done  more  damage  with  friends 
than  with  enemies."  (War  Records,  series  4,  vol.  2,  p.  289.) 

April  i,  1864,  General  Robert  E.  Lee  wrote  to  Adju 
tant  and  Inspector-General  Cooper  as  follows: 

"  Experience  has  convinced  me  that  it  is  almost  impossible, 
under  the  best  officers  even,  to  have  discipline  in  these 
bands  of  partisan  rangers,  or  to  prevent  them  from  becoming 
an  injury  instead  of  a  benefit  to  the  service,  and  even  where 
this  is  accomplished,  the  system  gives  license  to  many  deserters 
and  marauders  who  assume  to  belong  to  these  authorized 
companies,  and  commit  depredation  on  friend  and  foe." 
(War  Records,  Serial  No.  60,  p.  1252.) 

November  26,  1863,  the  Confederate  Secretary  of  War, 
in  a  report  to  the  President  of  the  Confederacy,  thus 
mentions  the  partisan  rangers : 

"  The  advantages  anticipated  from  the  allowance  of  corps  of 
partisan  rangers  with  peculiar  privileges  to  stimulate  their  zeal 
and  activity  have  been  very  partially  realized,  while  from  that 
independent  organization,  and  the  facilities  and  temptations 
thereby  afforded  to  license  and  depredations,  grave  mischiefs 
have  resulted.  They  have,  indeed,  when  under  inefficient 
officers,  and  operating  within  our  own  limits,  come  to  be 
regarded  as  more  formidable  and  destructive  to  our  own 
people  than  to  the  enemy.  The  opportunities,  too,  afforded 
them  of  profit  by  their  captures,  as  well  as  the  lighter  bonds  of 
discipline  under  which  they  are  held,  serve  to  dissatisfy  the 
trained  soldiers  of  the  provisional  army,  who  encounter  greater 
peril  and  privation  but  are  denied  similar  indulgences. 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  259 

"  There  are  certainly  some  honorable  exceptions  to  the  gen 
eral  estimate  thus  held  of  the  partisan  corps,  and  in  several 
instances  partisan  leaders  have  distinguished  themselves  and 
their  corps  by  services  as  eminent  as  their  achievements  have 
been  daring  and  brilliant.  They  constitute  only  notable  excep 
tions,  and  experience  of  the  general  inefficiency  and  even 
mischief  of  the  organization  would  recommend  that  they  either 
be  merged  in  the  troops  of  the  line  or  be  disbanded  and 
conscripted."  (  War  Records,  series  4,  vol.  2,  p.  1003.) 

On  the  nth  of  July,  1864,  General  Thomas  L. 
Rosser  wrote  to  General  Lee  concerning  "irregular  bod 
ies  of  troops  known  as  partisans,  etc."  He  says: 

"Without  discipline,  order,  or  organization,  they  swarm 
broadcast  over  the  country,  a  band  of  thieves,  stealing, 
pillaging,  plundering,  and  doing  every  manner  of  mischief 
and  crime.  They  are  a  terror  to  the  citizens  and  an 
injury  to  the  cause."  (War  Records,  Serial  No.  60,  p. 
1082.) 

July  1 6,  1863,  authority  was  granted  to  certain  men 
"to  raise  a  regiment  of  partisans  within  the  enemy's 
lines"  for  obstructing  communication  and  'transportation 
on  the  Mississippi  River.  (War  Records,  series  4,  vol. 
2,  p.  639.) 

July  15,  1863,  authority  was  granted  to  raise  two  com 
panies  of  partisan  rangers  to  be  composed  of  Kentuckians. 
(War  Records,  series  4,  vol.  2,  p.  359.) 

January  12,  1863,  Adjutant-  and  Inspector-General 
Cooper  issued  an  order  mentioning  the  irregularities  of 
the  partisan  rangers,  and  requiring  them  to  be  brought 
under  better  control,  adding,  however,  "Such  partisan 
corps  as  are  serving  within  the  enemy's  lines  are  for  the 
present  excepted  from  this  order. ' '  (  War  Records,  series 
4,  vol.  2,  p.  585.) 

February  17,  1864,  the  act  authorizing  partisan  rangers 
was  repealed,  and  another  enacted  making  them  the  same 


26o  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

as  regular  cavalry,  and  that  all  bands  organized  under  the 
first  act  should  be  brought  in  connection  with  the  regular 
forces.  Provided,  however,  that  "The  Secretary  of  War 
shall  be  authorized,  if  he  deem  proper,  for  a  time  or 
permanently,  to  except  from  the  operation  of  this  act 
such  companies  as  are  serving  within  the  lines  of  the 
enemy,  and  under  such  conditions  as  he  may  prescribe." 
(War  Records,  series  4,  vol.  3,  p.  194.) 

It  appears  from  the  foregoing  quotations  that  the  Con 
federate  authorities  saw  clearly  that  partisan  ranger  service 
was  either  simply  another  name  for  guerrilla  service,  or 
that  it  engendered  guerrilla  service,  and  that  it  was 
precisely  such  service  as  Kentucky  was  suffering  under. 
They  saw  the  viciousness  of  it  and  endeavored  to  lift  it 
off  themselves,  but  "  within  the  enemy's  lines  "  it  might 
go  on  unchecked. 

It  therefore  was  a  fact  that  from  1862  until  the  end  of 
the  war  Kentucky  was  overrun  and  infested  with  these 
irregular  bands,  who  always  claimed  to  be  "Confederate 
soldiers  "  when  captured,  and,  in  fact,  they  were  operating 
in  Kentucky  after  their  own  peculiar  manner  by  the  ex 
press  authority  of  the  Confederate  government. 

Without  giving  the  details  of  Collins's  Annals,  but  only 
a  general  statement,  it  will  be  shown  that  he  mentions 
the  burning  of  thirteen  court-houses  by  Confederate 
raiders.  He  gives  not  less  than  twenty  instances  of 
wanton  plundering  of  towns  by  the  same.  He  mentions 
fifteen  instances  of  killings  of  Union  men  by  the  same. 
He  notes  nine  instances  of  wanton  burning  other  than 
court-houses  by  the  same.  On  the  other  hand,  he  notes 
only  one  instance  of  plundering  by  Home  Guards,  no 
killings  and  no  burnings.  Only  one  court-house  is  men 
tioned  as  burned  by  the  Federals,  and  that  was  not 
intentional,  but  "by  the  carelessness  of  Federal  soldiers." 

The  wanton  burning  of  court-houses  is  so  striking  it 
is  proper  to  mention  them  particularly. 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  261 

"December  i,  1863,  Confederate  cavalry  enter Mt.  Sterling, 
burn  the  court-house,  and  clerk's  offices." 

"March  21,  1864,  court-house  at  Owingsville burned  by  the 
carelessness  of  Federal  soldiers." 

"June  i,  1864,  guerrillas  visit  Stanton,  Powell  Co.,  burn  the 
jail,  and  turn  over  the  clerk's  office.  They  destroyed  the 
court-house  previously." 

"December  4,  1864,  guerrillas  visit  Owingsville,  Bath  Co., 
rob  the  stores  and  make  a  bonfire  in  the  street  of  many 
records  and  court  papers  from  the  clerk's  office." 

"December  23d,  1864,  court-house  at  Campbellsville,  Taylor 
Co.,  burnt  by  General  Lyon's  Confederate  troops  after  removing 
the  records  to  a  place  of  safety.  Other  outrages  committed." 

"  December  28,  1864,  Captain  Basham  and  20  guerrillas  dash 
into  Hardinsburg,  Breckinridge  Co.,  capture  the  Home 
Guard  arms  in  the  court-house,  and  set  fire  to  that  and  other 
buildings." 

"January,  1865,  General  H.  B.  Lyon,  Confederate  forces, 
on  their  way  out  of  the  State,  visit  Burkesville,  Cumberland 
Co.,  burn  the  court-house,  plunder  the  stores,  and  impress 
horses." 

"  January  8,  1865,  court-house  and  public  records  at 
Owensboro  burned  by  guerrillas  under  Davidson  and 
Porter." 

"January  25,  1865,  guerrillas  have  recently  burned  the 
court-houses  at  Albany,  Clinton  Co.,  at  Marion,  Crittenden 
Co.,  and  at  Taylorsville,  Spencer  Co." 

"February  21,  1865,  guerrillas  burn  the  court-house  at 
Hodgenville,  Larue  Co.,  because  it  had  been  used  as  a 
barracks  for  Federal  soldiers." 

General  Lyon's  cavalry  also  burned  the  court-house  at 
Hopkinsville,  and  Morgan's  cavalry  burned  the  court 
house  at  Lebanon. 

A  good  statement  of  who  guerrillas  were  is  found  in 
the  history  of  Morgan's  cavalry,  by  General  Basil  W. 
Duke.  He  tells  how  troops  who  are  well  paid  and 


262  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

clothed  have  little  inducement  to  go  into  such  practices, 
and  then  says: 

"Troops  whose  rations  are  few  and  empty,  who  flutter  with 
rags,  and  wear  ventilated  shoes  which  suck  in  the  cold  air, 
who  sleep  at  night  under  a  blanket  which  keeps  the  saddle 
from  a  sore-backed  horse  in  the  daytime,  who  are  paid  (if 
paid  at  all)  with  waste  paper,  who  have  become  hardened  to 
the  licentious  practices  of  cruel  warfare — such  troops  will  be 
frequently  tempted  to  violate  the  moral  code. 

"Many  Confederate  cavalry  so  situated  left  their  com 
mands  altogether  and  became  guerrillas,  salving  their  con 
sciences  with  the  thought  that  the  desertion  was  not  to  the 
enemy.  These  men,  leading  a  comparatively  luxurious  life, 
and  receiving  from  a  good  people  a  mistaken  and  foolish 
admiration,  attracted  to  the  same  career  young  men  who,  (but 
for  the  example  and  sympathy  accorded  the  guerrillas  and 
denied  the  faithful,  brave  and  suffering  soldier)  would  never 
have  quitted  their  colors  and  their  duty. 

"Kentucky  was  at  one  time,  just  before  the  close  of  the 
war,  teeming  with  these  guerrillas.  It  was  of  no  use  to 
threaten  them  with  punishment.  They  had  no  idea  of  being 
caught.  Besides,  Burbridge  shot  all  he  could  lay  his  hands 
on,  and  for  their  sins,  many  prisoners  (guilty  of  no  offence), 
selected  at  random  or  by  lot  from  the  pens  where  he  kept 
them  for  that  purpose,  were  butchered  by  this  insensate 
bloodhound."  l  (Duke's  History  of  Morgan's  Cavalry, 

P-  53°-) 

Bad  as  all  this  was,  it  was  aggravated  by  another 
method  of  throwing  irresponsible  bands  into  Kentucky 
to  depredate  on  all  that  appertained  to  the  Union  cause. 
The  Confederate  authorities  expressly  commissioned 
men  to  enter  Kentucky  to  recruit  for  the  Confederate 
service.  This  work  must  have  been  secret  and  without 
uniform,  and  thus  the  State  was  filled  with  characters  such 

1  See  Appendix,  §  21,  p.  356. 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  263 

as  will  be  described  in  a  letter  written  by  Confederate 
General  N.  B.  Forrest. 

In  the  year  1864  and  early  in  1865  Kentucky  was  full 
of  bands  of  Confederates,  operating  as  they  saw  fit.  In 
January,  1865,  General  John  C.  Breckinridge  sent  his 
kinsman  Colonel  Robert  J.  Breckinridge  into  the  State 
to  require  Confederates  in  the  State  to  report  to  him, 
under  penalty  of  not  being  recognized,  if  captured,  as 
prisoners  of  war.  Colonel  Breckinridge  was  captured 
with  this  order  in  his  possession.  ( War  Records,  Serial 
No.  103,  pp.  764,  770.) 

The  following  letter  from  Confederate  General  N.  B. 
Forrest  to  the  Confederate  Secretary  of  War  is  very 
interesting.  It  serves  to  explain  who  were  the  men  who 
were  roaming  about  Kentucky,  claiming  to  be  authorized 
Confederate  soldiers,  and  acting  as  described  not  only  by 
General  Forrest  but  by  the  records,  and  in  Collins's 
Annals: 

"  HEADQUARTERS  FORREST'S  CAVALRY  CORPS, 
"WEST  POINT,  Miss.    March  18,  1865. 

"  HON.  JOHN  C.  BRECKINRIDGE, 

"  Secretary  of  War,  Richmond,  Va. 

"  GENERAL: — I  take  the  liberty  of  addressing  you  relative  to 
the  state  of  affairs  in  the  district  of  southern  Kentucky,  and 
to  bring  to  your  notice  and  knowledge  existing  evils  which  can 
alone  be  corrected  by  yourself  as  the  chief  of  the  War  Depart 
ment.  It  is  due  to  myself  to  state  that  I  disclaim  all  desire  or 
intention  to  dictate.  So  far  from  it,  I  hesitate  even  now  to 
make  known  the  facts  or  to  suggest  the  remedies  to  be  applied. 
No  other  motive  than  the  'good  of  the  service'  prompts  me  to 
address  you. 

"A  military  district  was  formed  in  southern  Kentucky, 
including  a  small  portion  of  west  Tennessee,  and  Brigadier- 
General  A.  R.  Johnson  assigned  to  the  command  of  it.  The 
object  in  creating  this  district  was  doubtless  for  the  purpose 
of  raising  and  organizing  troops  for  our  army.  Its  permanent 


264  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

occupation   by   any   force    raised  within   its    limits  was   not 
expected  or  calculated  upon. 

"  If  it  was,  the  sequel  shows  that  both  in  raising  troops  or 
holding  the  territory  the  experiment  is  a  complete  failure. 
General  Johnson  was  often  reported  to  have  from  1,200  to 
i, 800  men,  was  finally  wounded  and  captured  and  his  men 
scattered  to  the  four  winds. 

"Brigadier-General  Lyon  then  succeeded  him,  and  was 
driven  across  the  Tennessee  River  into  north  Alabama  with  only 
a  handful  of  men.  Nothing  has  been  added  to  our  army,  for, 
while  the  men  flock  to  and  remain  with  General  Johnson  or 
General  Lyon,  as  long  as  they  can  stay  in  Kentucky,  as  soon 
as  the  enemy  presses,  and  they  turn  southward,  the  men 
scatter,  and  my  opinion  is,  they  can  never  be  brought  out 
organized  until  we  send  troops  there  in  sufficient  numbers  to 
bring  them  out  by  force. 

"So  far  from  gaining  any  strength  for  the  army,  the  Kentucky 
brigade,  now  in  my  command,  has  only  about  300  men  in 
camps  (3d,  7th,  and  8th  Kentucky  Regiments).  They  have 
deserted  and  attached  themselves  to  the  roving  bands  of 
guerrillas,  jayhawkers,  and  plunderers  who  are  the  natural 
offspring  of  authorities  given  to  parties  to  raise  troops  within 
the  enemy's  lines. 

"  The  authorities  given  to  would-be  colonels,  and  by  them 
delegated  to  would-be  captains  and  lieutenants,  have  created 
squads  of  men  who  are  dodging  from  pillar  to  post,  preying 
upon  the  people,  robbing  them  of  their  horses  and  other 
property,  to  the  manifest  injury  of  the  country  and  our  cause. 

*'  The  same  state  of  affairs  exists  in  west  Tennessee.  The 
country  is  filled  with  deserters  and  stragglers,  who  run  away 
and  attach  themselves  to  the  commands  of  those  who  have 
the  authorities  referred  to.  They  never  organize,  report  to 
nobody,  are.  responsible  to  no  one,  and  exist  by  plunder  and 
robbery.  There  may  perhaps  be  a  few  exceptions,  but  as  a 
general  thing,  men  who  besiege  the  department  for  such 
authorities  are  officers  without  position  or  command,  who,  by 
flattering  representations,  recommendations,  and  influential 
friends,  avoid  the  ranks  by  obtaining  authorities  to  raise 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  265 

troops  within  the  enemy's  lines.  I  venture  the  assertion  that 
where  one  succeeds  and  organizes  a  command,  ninety-nine 
fail,  and  that  they  take  twenty  men  out  of  the  army  to  one 
placed  in  it. 

"  I  therefore  unhesitatingly  recommend  that  all  parties  hold 
ing  such  authorities,  or  acting  under  orders  from  those  who 
do  hold  them,  be  ordered  to  report  with  what  men  they  have 
to  the  nearest  department  commander,  within  a  limited  period, 
for  consolidation  and  organization,  and  those  failing  so  to 
report,  to  have  their  authorities  revoked,  and  themselves 
subjected  to  conscription  whenever  caught. 

"  Do  not  understand  me  as  reflecting  on  General  Johnson  or 
General  Lyon;  they  did  all  they  could,  no  doubt,  to  carry  out 
the  objects  of  the  department  in  their  district.  They  have 
failed,  and  the  fact  to  my  mind  is  demonstrated  most  clearly 
that  the  conscripts  and  deserters  in  west  Tennessee  and 
Kentucky  will  never  come  out  until  brought  out  by  force. 

"  If  all  the  authorities  to  raise  troops  in  the  enemy's  lines  are 
revoked,  and  the  mustering  officers  ordered  out,  troops  can  be 
occasionally  sent  in  under  good  and  reliable  officers,  to  arrest 
and  bring  out  deserters,  and  break  up  the  bands  of  lawless  men 
who  not  only  rob  the  citizens  themselves,  but  whose  presence 
in  the  country  gives  a  pretext  to  Federal  authority  for 
oppressing  the  people. 

"  I  am,  General,  very  respectfully, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"N.  B.  FORREST,  Major-General." 

From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  war  the  Federal 
authorities  were  in  control  of  the  entire  State  of  Ken 
tucky,  with  two  brief  exceptions,  the  first  being  when  the 
Confederates  first  entered  in  1861  and  for  about  four 
months  controlled  the  extreme  southern  border,  and, 
second,  in  the  year  1862  when  Generals  Bragg  and  Kirby 
Smith  overspread  some  of  the  central  portion  for  about 
two  months.  During  all  the  years  of  the  war,  with  these 
brief  exceptions,  the  State  was  fully  in  the  possession  of 
the  Federals,  and  a  large  part  of  the  troops  used  in  its 


266  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

protection  were  Kentuckians.  As  has  been  already 
stated,  the  administration  showed  that  consideration  for 
the  State  which  caused  it  to  place  Kentucky  officers,  and 
Kentucky  troops,  upon  this  duty.  The  work  of  the 
officers  and  soldiers,  in  conjunction,  oftentimes,  with 
troops  from  other  States,  was  that  of  defence  and  pro 
tection.  There  was  nothing  in  the  State  which  they 
wished  to  destroy.  They  were  to  maintain  the  railroads 
and  all  bridges,  guard  all  government  property,  and  pre 
vent,  in  so  far  as  they  were  able,  the  destruction  of  any 
thing.  That  unlawful  acts  by  lawless  soldiers  would 
sometimes  occur  were  incidents  inseparable  from  the  pre 
sence  of  large  numbers  of  soldiers  in  any  war,  and  in 
any  country,  but  that  the  Federal  soldiery  in  Kentucky 
oppressed  or  outraged  the  citizens  is  simply  unwarranted 
assertion.  The  Federal  forces  were  not  "quartered" 
upon  the  people.  They  did  not  "subsist  upon  the 
country."  Rations  for  the  men  and  provender  for  the 
beasts  were  issued  from  the  supplies  of  the  commissaries, 
precisely  as  if  the  troops  were  in  a  country  destitute  of 
subsistence.  When  supplies  were  obtained  the  govern 
ment  paid  for  them,  or  gave  written  obligation  to  pay. 

If  Kentucky  had  not  had  the  irritation  of  conflicts  with 
the  raiders  from  the  Confederacy,  the  war  would  have 
been  felt  but  lightly. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  records  show  that  the  Con 
federates  came  into  Kentucky  to  make  her  feel  the  heavy 
hand  of  war.  They  came  for  destruction,  and  for  supplies 
of  horses  and  other  stock,  and  whatever  else  came  to 
hand.  Government  property,  wherever  found,  was  taken 
or  destroyed.  Buildings  in  towns  were  burned.  Court 
houses,  especially,  seemed  to  be  proper  to  be  burned. 
Money  was  taken  from  banks,  goods  from  stores,  jewels 
from  private  houses.  Whatever  was  wanted  was  taken 
wantonly.  The  proof  of  all  this  is  found  fairly  well  set 
forth  in  Collins's  Annals.  Without  being  a  fair  or 


The  Guerrilla  Evil  267 

impartial  chronicler  (for  he  was  an  intense  Southern 
partisan)  yet  in  order  to  make  a  chronicle  at  all  he  must 
needs,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  in  setting  down  the 
deplorable  incidents  of  the  war,  note  scores  perpetrated 
by  Confederates  to  one  which  was  not.  He  did  not 
gather  all,  nor  anything  like  all,  the  guerrilla  outrages, 
but  it  is  not  likely  he  overlooked  any  perpetrated  by 
Union  men.  The  principal  complaints  Collins  has  against 
the  Federal  authorities  are  upon  political  grounds — 
blaming  the  officers  for  interfering  with  the  personal 
liberty  of  citizens  and  for  holding  them  responsible  for 
the  outrages  of  guerrillas.  And  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  he  makes  even  so  mild  a  man  as  Governor  Bramlette 
the  principal  " offender"  in  this  particular. 

In  noting  the  striking  events  in  Kentucky  during  the 
war,  Collins  gives  more  than  a  hundred  instances  of  out 
rages  perpetrated  by  the  raiders — killings,  burnings,  loot 
ings,  and  such  like  crimes.  Practically  none  does  he 
give  as  perpetrated  by  Unionists. 

Although  Collins,  in  making  his  Annals,  sets  down 
almost  nothing  as  against  the  Home  Guards,  yet  the 
historian  Z.  F.  Smith  has  done'them  the  injustice  to  class 
them  with  the  guerrillas  in  a  general  statement  supported 
neither  by  fact  nor  by  reference  to  any  authority  whatever. 
He  says  with  truth  that  "  Confederates  came  to  prowl  and 
prey  upon  communities  in  defiance  of  all  restraints  of 
civilized  warfare,  marauding  bands  of  outlaws,  who  per 
petrated  murders,  robberies,  arson,  and  outrage" — but 
without  warrant  of  any  record  or  citation  of  authority 
adds — "as  wantonly  as  did  the  worst  element  of  the 
other  side." 

The  injustice  is  that  the  Home  Guards,  acting  with  the 
regular  military,  were  making  war  upon  the  lawless 
bands.  While  one  side  came  into  the  State  for  purposes 
of  mischief,  the  other  side  was  organized  and  used  in  the 
State  for  the  purpose  of  protection.  Moreover,  it  was  in 


268  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

large  measure  Kentuckians  protecting  themselves,  and  the 
task  they  had  was  to  protect  themselves  from  the  inten 
tionally  destructive  raids  made  into  the  State  by  rangers 
and  guerrillas  which  the  Confederacy  sent  out  generally, 
but  afterwards  drew  in,  so  far  as  their  own  territory  was 
concerned,  but  left  them  in  full  riot  when  "serving  within 
the  enemy's  lines,"  which  included  Kentucky. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

HALLUCINATIONS 

*T*HOSE  who  favored  secession  in  Kentucky  were 
1  confident  that  the  State  would  follow  the  lead  of 
the  other  seceding  States.  While  it  was  plain  in  the 
early  part  of  1861  that  there  were  many  Union  men  in 
the  State,  all  the  advantage  seemed  to  be  with  the  seces 
sionists.  They  had  the  Governor  and  public  arms  of  the 
State,  and  they  felt  sure  of  the  Legislature.  With  such 
odds,  it  seemed  to  be  a  well-nigh  assured  fact  that  the 
State  could  be  seceded. 

The  extremely  narrow  Union  margin  in  the  Legislature 
by  which  the  first  step  toward  secession  was  prevented, 
did  not  convince  the  intensely  earnest  secessionists  that 
the  State  was  really  Union  in  sentiment ;  nor  were  they 
convinced  by  the  voting  of  1861,  although  such  large 
majorities  were  polled  by  the  Unionists.  It  was  too  hard 
a  task  for  the  friends  of  the  Southern  movement  to  give 
up  Kentucky  as  hopeless.  Nothing  that  occurred  could 
convince  them  that  the  people  of  Kentucky  would  adhere 
to  the  Union,  when  all  the  burning  appeals  were  made  to 
them,  portraying  the  magnificent  future  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  and  depicting  the  intolerable  oppressions 
and  despotic  purposes  of  the  friends  of  the  Union.  Nor 
was  the  idea  given  up  wholly  at  any  time.  The  halluci 
nation  that  the  people  of  Kentucky  were  willing  and 
anxious  to  join  the  Southern  movement  caused  great 
injustice  to  be  done  to  the  friends  of  the  Union.  This 
injustice  was  twofold.  The  constant  heralding  of  the 

269 


270  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

error  that  the  people  were  for  the  South  led  to  harsh 
criticism  of  the  Union  leaders,  and  it  led  to  much  ques 
tioning  of  the  genuine  loyalty  of  the  State.  The  people 
of  the  South  were  made  to  believe  that  the  Union  leaders 
in  Kentucky  were  perfidious  and  two-faced,  while  the 
people  in  the  North  came  to  think  that  nearly  every  man 
in  Kentucky  was  either  a  traitor  or  at  least  of  doubtful 
loyalty. 

The  sentiment  thus  created  has  never  been  wholly 
eradicated.  While  it  may  be  lost  sight  of  in  the  minds 
of  many  who  prefer  that  all  such  matters  should  be  for 
gotten,  the  histories  which  have  been  written  still  preserve 
the  error,  and  it  is  but  just  to  the  memory  of  great  and 
good  men  that  the  contrary  should  be  set  forth,  that  the 
history  of  the  past  may  not  always  present  to  readers  and 
inquirers  a  grievously  false  impression. 

It  has  been  affirmed  that  there  was,  in  some  sort,  a 
compact  between  the  friends  of  the  South  on  one  side  and 
the  Unionists  on  the  other  in  regard  to  neutrality ;  that 
"this  compact  thus  formed  was  not  violated  by  the  South 
ern  men";  that  Mr.  Lincoln  gave  assurances  that  if  Ken 
tucky  would  remain  neutral,  "no  hostile  step  should 
tread  her  soil"  ;  that  "the  Southern  leaders  awoke  too  late 
to  a  realization  of  the  fact  that  they  had  been  circum 
vented";  that  "under  the  guise  of  neutrality,  the  war 
was  prepared  to  subjugate  Kentucky"  ;  that  "the  history 
of  no  country,  or  no  part  or  period  of  the  late  civil  war, 
presents  a  darker  chapter  than  that  which  records  the 
first  six  months  of  the  war,  and  the  means  by  which  Ken 
tucky  was  finally  occupied  by  the  Federal  army  and,  thus 
bound,  claimed  to  be  loyal  in  the  sense  of  sanctioning 
such  a  policy";  that  the  Southern  sympathizers  in  Ken 
tucky  rested  secure  in  the  confident  expectation  that  noth 
ing  would  be  done  to  interrupt  the  relations  of  the  State 
toward  the  North  and  the  South,  which  "vain  delusion" 
was  suddenly  dispelled  by  the  organization  of  troops  at 


Hallucinations  271 

Camp  Dick  Robinson,  and  on  that  account  the  Con 
federacy  was  compelled  in  self-defence  to  advance  her 
troops  into  the  State,  September  3,  1861.  It  has  been 
said  that  Kentucky  had  chosen  for  herself  the  position  of 
neutrality;  which  the  South  tenaciously  respected,  and 
that  on  the  other  hand  the  government  of  the  United 
States  repudiated  it  from  the  beginning,  and  repeatedly 
violated  it,  and  scoffed  at  those  who  trusted  to  it  for 
protection;  that  President  Lincoln  acted  with  duplicity, 
also  General  McClellan,  and  the  great  men  of  the  Union 
party ;  that  they  were  all  filled  with  deceit  and  treachery, 
and  that  a  systematic  scheme  was  concocted  to  mis- 
lead  the  innocent,  credulous,  and  unsuspecting  Southern 
sympathizers.  Therefore,  when  the  Confederate  troops 
came  into  the  State,  September  3,  1861,  proclamations 
were  issued  apparently  in  good  faith,  notifying  the 
Kentucky  people  that,  whereas  they  had  been  so 
duped  and  hoodwinked  by  the  Federals,  now  the 
opportunity  was  offered  for  them  to  arise  and  assert  their 
rights. 

The  extravagant  charges  of  the  day  have  since  been 
reiterated  by  writers  of  historical  works.  In  Z.  F.  Smith's 
History  of  Kentucky,  published  in  1886,  he  uses  this 
language : 

"The  door  had  been  thrown  widely  open  by  the  bold  act 
of  General  Nelson  at  Camp  Dick  Robinson,  and  no  longer 
the  thin  disguise  of  pretext  could  conceal  that  the  authorities 
at  Washington  and  the  positive  leaders  of  the  Union  cause, 
grown  bold  by  the  advantages  they  had  won  in  the  Fabian 
strategies  of  delay,  were  now  concurring  to  throw  off  the  mask 
of  neutrality,  and  to  lead  the  great  mass  of  her  people  to  a 
committal  to  the  policy  of  coercion  under  the  plea  of  loyalty 
and  patriotic  duty.  The  great  majority  of  the  people,  who 
had  been  profoundly  sincere  and  honest  in  the  adoption  of 
neutrality  before,  beheld  now  the  misleading  illusion  vanish 
before  their  illusion  of  hope." 


272  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

The  representations  made  at  the  time  are  also  echoed 
in  Jefferson  Davis's  history  of  the  War.  He  says: 

"As  far  as  the  truth  could  be  ascertained,  a  decided 
majority  of  the  people  of  Kentucky,  especially  in  its  south 
western  portion,  if  left  to  a  free  choice,  would  have  joined 
the  Confederacy  in  preference  to  remaining  in  the  Union." 
(Vol.  L,  p.  398.) 

He  also  says: 

"I  have  thus  presented  the  case  of  Kentucky,  not  because  it 
was  the  only  state  where  false  promises  lulled  the  people  into 
delusive  security  until  by  gradual  approaches  usurpation  had 
bound  them  hand  and  foot,  and  where  despotic  power  crushed 
all  the  muniments  of  civil  liberty  which  the  Union  was  formed 
to  secure,  but  because  of  the  attempt  which  has  been  noticed 
to  arraign  the  Confederacy  for  invasion  of  the  State  in  dis 
regard  of  her  sovereignty." 

The  fact  is,  the  secessionists  of  Kentucky,  and  through 
them  the  leaders  in  the  Confederacy,  were  firmly  set  in 
the  conclusion  that  Kentucky  rightfully  belonged  to  the 
South,  when  the  people  themselves  declared  in  every  way 
they  could,  and  in  the  most  unmistakable  manner,  that 
they  would  not  join  in  with  secession,  but  would  adhere 
to  the  Union. 

Shaler  in  his  history  truthfully  says : 

"The  tone  of  the  Southern  States  in  assuming  that 
Kentucky  belonged  to  them,  but  was  kept  in  her  relation 
to  the  Union  by  fear,  was  deeply  offensive  to  the  State 
pride." 

The  repeated  assertions  that  the  majority  of  the  people 
of  Kentucky  were  in  favor  of  secession  virtually  pledged 
the  State  to  the  Southern  Confederacy,  and  when  it  was 
discovered  that  not  a  step  could  be  taken  in  that  direction, 
the  reasons  assigned  were  treachery,  duplicity,  and  bad 
faith  on  the  part  of  everybody  who  opposed  secession. 

The   unwarranted   attitude   of   the   Southern    leaders 


Hallucinations  273 

toward  Kentucky  is  illustrated  in  a  letter  written  to  Gen 
eral  A.  S.  Johnston  by  George  W.  Johnson,  who  was 
made  " provisional  Governor"  of  Kentucky.  The  date  is 
October  15,  1861.  He  says: 

44  At  present,  a  large  portion  of  the  people  of  Kentucky  have 
neither  the  protection  of  State,  Federal,  nor  Confederate  law. 
The  people  by  large  majorities  maintained  at  the  polls  the 
position  of  neutrality  and  peace,  while  the  Legislature,  repudi 
ating  the  only  doctrine  it  dared  assert  before  the  election,  have 
plunged  the  State  into  war.  Large  majorities  of  the  people 
have  always  been  and  are  now  in  favor  of  a  permanent  con 
nection  with  the  South,  whilst  the  Legislature,  urged  by  an 
insatiable  ambition  and  party  spirit,  have  forced  her  into  an 
unnatural  connection  with  the  North — the  most  unnecessary, 
foolish,  and  criminal  act,  in  our  opinion,  ever  perpetrated." 
War  Records,  Series  i,  vol.  4,  p.  450.) 

George  W.  Johnson  also  says  that 

"since  Lincoln's  election  there  were  but  two  parties  in  Ken 
tucky,  the  States  Rights  party  and  the  Union  party;  that  the 
States  Rights  party  were  at  all  times  in  favor  of  connection 
with  the  South;  that  even  the  Union  party  was  in  favor  of 
ultimate  connection  with  the  South;  that  this  was  their  party 
creed  when  members  of  Congress  were  chosen  in  the  summer 
of  1861;  that  when  Congress  met  the  Union  Congressmen 
threw  off  disguise ;  that  this  aroused  the  people  to  violent  and 
extreme  denunciations." 

He  calls  this  a  simple  and  "true  history"  of  the  Union 
party  in  Kentucky,  but  fails  to  include  in  it  a  mention  of 
the  August  election,  when  the  people  voted  for  Union 
men  by  an  enormous  majority,  thus  ratifying  the  action 
of  their  Congressmen. 

President  Davis  transmitted  Mr.  Johnson's  letter  to  the 
Congress,  saying  it  is  manifest  the  people  of  Kentucky 
by  a  large  majority  wish  to  unite  their  destinies  with  the 
South,  and  that  there  is  "  Merit  enough  in  the  application 

18 


274  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

to  warrant  the  disregard  of  its  irregularity,"  and  that 
"we  may  rightfully  recognize  the  provisional  government 
of  Kentucky."  (/#.,  p.  753.) 

It  was  upon  the  hallucination  that  the  people  of  Ken 
tucky  did  not  know  what  they  wanted,  and  that  their 
voting  signified  nothing,  or  that  they  were  deluded  and 
deceived,  that  the  Confederate  commanders  when  they 
came  into  the  State  appealed  to  them  as  they  did. 

In  September,  1861,  General  Albert  Sidney  Johnston,  in 
a  proclamation  addressed  to  the  people  of  Kentucky, 
said: 

"If,  as  it  may  not  be  unreasonable  to  suppose,  these  people 
desire  to  unite  their  fortunes  with  the  Confederate  States,  to 
whom  they  are  already  bound  by  so  many  ties  of  interest,  then 
the  appearance  and  aid  of  Confederate  troops  will  assist  them 
to  make  an  opportunity  for  the  free  and  unbiased  expression  of 
their  own  will  upon  the  subject." 

Such  an  expression  could  have  only  sprung  from  com 
plete  hallucination.  "These  people"  had  declared  their 
will  at  the  polls  when  no  army  was  on  hand  of  either  side 
to  "assist"  them,  in  the  month  previous.  Yet  they  were 
appealed  to  as  though  they  had  not,  and  as  though  the 
presence  of  the  Confederate  army  was  necessary  to 
enable  them  to  express  their  free  and  unrestrained  will. 
Again,  when  General  Bragg  came  into  Kentucky  in  1862, 
he  issued  a  proclamation  based  upon  the  idea  that  the 
people  only  wanted  the  opportunity  which  the  presence 
of  a  Confederate  army  would  give  them  to  reverse  the 
judgment  they  had  rendered  when  no  soldiers  of  either 
side  were  in  the  State. 

His  address  is  here  given  in  full : 

"  BARDSTOWN,  K.Y.,  September  29,  1862. 
"  To  THE  PEOPLE  OF  KENTUCKY: 

"The  armies  of  the  Confederate  States  now  within  your 
borders  were  brought  here  more  as  a  nucleus  around  which  the 


Hallucinations  275 

true  men  of  Kentucky  could  rally  than  as  an  invading  force 
against  the  northwest.  As  you  value  your  rights  of  person  and 
property  and  your  exemption  from  tyranny  and  oppression  you 
will  now  rally  to  the  standard  which  protects  you,  and  has 
rescued  your  wives  and  mothers  from  insult  and  outrage. 
Troops  in  any  number  will  be  received  by  companies  and  armed 
and  will  be  organized  into  regiments  as  fast  as  practicable,  com 
pany  officers  to  be  elected  by  their  own  men,  and  field  officers 
to  be  appointed  by  the  President,  on  recommendation  of  the 
commanding  general,  after  passing  a  proper  examination. 
Companies  should  repair,  as  soon  as  formed,  to  Bryantsville 
and  report  to  the  officer  charged  with  the  organization  of 
recruits.  Arms  and  ammunition  are  there  ready  for  issue  to 
all.  The  usual  pay  and  bounty  will  be  given.  Twenty  com 
panies  of  cavalry  are  wanted.  After  they  are  supplied, 
infantry  only  will  be  received.  Cavalry  recruits  will  be 
received  in  any  of  the  regiments  now  in  the  field.  This  is  the 
last  opportunity  Kentucky  will  enjoy  for  volunteering.  The 
conscript  act  will  be  enforced  as  soon  as  necessary  arrange 
ments  can  be  made.  For  further  information  as  to  details, 
apply  to  Major-General  S.  B.  Buckner,  who  is  charged  with  the 
superintendence  of  this  duty. 

"BRAXTON  BRAGG, 

"  General  Commanding." 
(War  Records,  Serial  No.  no,  p.  367.) 

It  would  be  impossible  to  conceive  of  any  hallucination 
more  extraordinary  than  an  appeal  to  the  people  to  rally 
to  a  standard  for  rescue  from  oppression,  and  at  the  same 
time  declare  to  them  that  if  they  did  not  voluntarily 
rally  they  would  be  conscripted !  There  was  a  strange 
sound  in  the  words: 

"This  is  the  last  opportunity  Kentuckians  will  enjoy  for 
volunteering.  The  conscript  act  will  be  enforced  as  soon 
as  necessary  arrangements  can  be  made." 

They  had  an  effect  not  strange  but  natural.  At  the 
very  time  General  Bragg  was  expecting  the  rally  to  his 
standard  the  Kentucky  Unionists  were  crowding  into 


276  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

regimental  organizations  to  resist  his  invasion  of 
the  State,  and  he  retired  a  little  after,  shaking  off 
the  dust  of  his  feet  against  the  people  who  would 
not  receive  his  gracious  offer  to  volunteer  or  be 
conscripted. 

The  attitude  of  the  Southern  leaders  toward  Kentucky 
was  peculiar,  and  the  manner  in  which  writers  since  the 
war  have  followed  their  claims  and  statements  made  dur 
ing  the  war  has  produced  false  impressions  and  done 
great  injustice. 

Confederate  General  Hodge,  writing  in  Collins's  His 
tory  of  Kentucky ',  makes  an  effort  to  state  the  case 
fairly,  but  in  doing  so  shows  that  he  was  under  the  spell 
of  the  invincible  hallucination  which  was  upon  all.  The 
task  is  too  great  for  any  of  them  to  grasp  the  proposition 
in  its  full  truth,  that  Kentucky  was  in  point  of  actual 
fact  really  a  Union  State. 

They  must  all  qualify  the  case  in  some  way.  General 
Hodge  accepts  the  proposition  that  the  people  of  Ken 
tucky  were  Unionists,  but  he  finds  that  they  were  so 
simply  from  blind  and  unreasoning  acceptance  of  an 
inherited  idea,  not  from  intelligent  judgment.  He  also 
adds  the  qualification  that  they  all  believed  in  the  abstract 
right  of  secession.  He  says: 

"He  must  be  struck  with  judicial  blindness  who,  in  arriving 
at  conclusions  drawn  from  a  careful  retrospect  of  the  action  of 
the  people  of  Kentucky  during  this  crisis,  will  deny  that  a  vast 
majority  of  the  people  of  the  State  were  devoted  to  the  cause 
of  the  Union,  and  deeply  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  its 
preservation,  if  possible.  In  truth,  the  sentiment  of  devotion 
to  the  Union  was  more  nearly  akin  to  the  religious  faith  which 
is  born  in  childhood,  which  never  falters  during  the  excite 
ments  of  the  longest  life,  and  which  at  last  enables  the  cradle 
to  triumph  over  the  grave.  The  mass  of  them  did  not  reason 
about  it.  The  Union  was  apotheosized;  it  was  thought  of 
and  cherished  with  filial  reverence.  The  suggestion  of  its 


Hallucinations  277 

dissolution  was  esteemed  akin  to  blasphemy.     To  advocate  or 
to  speculate  about  it  was  to  be  infamous." 

Then  he  adds: 

"But  it  must  not  be  less  clearly  apparent  to  the  observer 
that  a  decided  majority  of  the  people  believed  honestly  in  the 
abstract  right  of  a  State  to  secede  and  a  vast  majority  were 
firmly  opposed  to  the  attempt  to  coerce  the  people  of  the  State 
to  remain  under  the  control  of  a  federative  government  which 
had  become  unacceptable  to  them.  Nearly  all  classes  of 
public  men,  nearly  all  classes  of  private  citizens,  held  firmly, 
as  a  cardinal  principle  of  political  faith,  the  soundness  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  celebrated  Kentucky  resolutions  of  1798-9, 
which,  in  substance,  declared  that  each  State  was  the  final  judge 
of  the  remedies  it  should  pursue  when  aggrieved  by  the  action 
of  the  Federal  government  of  the  allied  States.  .  .  .  They, 
as  a  people,  undoubtedly  believed  that  the  action  of  the 
Southern  States  in  seceding  was  unwise  and  ill-advised,  but 
the  abstract  right  they  did  not  deny." 

Hodge  could  acknowledge  that  voting  for  the  Union  at 
least  indicated  a  superstitious  devotion,  but  cannot  make 
even  that  acknowledgment  without  qualifying  it  by  a 
wholly  gratuitous  assumption. 

It  was  this  hallucination  which  led  to  the  crimination  of 
the  Union  leaders  in  Kentucky,  by  the  men  who  went 
south.  They  could  not  and  would  not  be  convinced  that 
Kentucky  took  her  stand  against  the  Southern  move 
ment,  and  therefore  would  have  it  that  some  persons 
deceived  and  deluded  the  people.  They  freely  gave 
this  idea  expression. 

Another  hallucination  which  led  to  great  injustice  was 
that,  although  actual  war  was  raging,  conditions  were 
normal  and  affairs  of  all  sorts  ought  to  go  on  in  the  usual 
way.  Although  thousands  were  perishing  in  actual 
battle,  and  although  two  great  contending  powers  were 
striving,  each  for  its  own  existence,  many  persons  in  Ken- 


278  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

tucky  rested  under  the  delusion  that  in  the  midst  of  such 
a  conflict  any  abridgment  of  personal  right  was  an  un 
justifiable  interference.  Especially  was  entire  freedom 
of  speech  insisted  upon,  and  any  molestation  on  ac 
count  of  incendiary  or  treasonable  speaking  was  called  an 
"outrage." 

This  was  well  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Vallandingham, 
of  Ohio.  He  claimed  the  right  to  make  inflammatory 
speeches  in  Ohio,  which  tended  to  injure  the  National 
cause,  and  in  answer  to  the  defence  he  made  when 
arrested,  Lincoln  used  the  celebrated  illustration:  shall 
the  soldier  boy  who  deserts  his  post  be  shot,  and  the  wily 
agitator  who  induced  him  to  do  so  go  free? 

It  may  be  admitted  that  military  management  did 
injustice  in  certain  cases,  but  in  the  throes  of  actual  war 
this  was  to  be  expected.  It  was  a  fight,  not  a  peaceful 
arbitrament,  and  ideas  of  self-preservation  would  be  up 
permost,  even  though  peaceful  rights  suffered.  But  in 
Kentucky  there  was  a  demand  that  the  daily  current  of 
life  should  flow  on  as  evenly  as  if  all  were  peace,  and  if 
the  serenity  of  the  hour  were  interrupted,  violent  de 
nunciations  of  the  military  followed.  Antipathy  grew 
up  against  the  whole  administration  of  Federal  affairs, 
and  as  Kentucky  officers  were  generally  in  charge  in  Ken 
tucky,  the  censure  fell  primarily  on  their  heads,  and 
through  them  upon  all  Kentucky  Unionists.  One  of  the 
most  common  complaints  was  on  account  of  the  arrest  of 
alleged  innocent  persons.  This  was  called  "high-handed 
interference"  with  the  rights  of  citizens.  Other  military 
interferences  were  also  complained  of  at  the  time. 
Doubtless  some  injustice  was  done  at  the  time  by  the 
military,  and  also  by  those  who  denounced  the  military, 
but  a  more  uncalled-for  injustice  has  been  perpetrated 
since  the  war  by  various  writers  who  have  placed  upon  the 
historic  page  the  wholesale  crimination  rife  at  the  time, 
but  not  sustained  by  any  record  evidence.  Shaler  finds 


Hallucinations  279 

that  Kentucky  officers  like  Boyle  were  tyrants.  He  tells 
of  Boyle  being  in  command  of  the  Provost  Marshals,  and 
alleges  gross  and  crying  evils  of  the  system.  Without 
authority,  he  says  that  Bragg  recruited  from  the  "class  of 
persons  who  had  suffered  in  person  or  their  sympathies 
from  the  brutal  tyranny  of  the  Provost  Marshal  system, 
many  of  them  men  of  conservative  Union  proclivities 
who  had  been  turned  into  rebels  by  the  outrages  of  the 
military  authorities." 

He  also  finds  that  the  management  of  military  affairs  in 
Kentucky,  which,  as  elsewhere  stated,  was  largely  in  the 
hands  of  Kentucky  officers,  brought  into  "utter  degrada 
tion  the  solemnity  of  an  oath,  which  was  a  lamentable 
feature  of  the  civil  war."  He  also  finds  that  there  were 
"flagrantly  unjust  methods."  One  was  holding  "rebel 
sympathizers"  responsible  for  guerrilla  outrages.  Yet  it 
was  Governor  Bramlette  who  was  peculiarly  responsible 
for  this  method  of  stopping  this  evil.  Another  was  the 
complaint  of  military  interference  at  elections,  though  his 
own  statement  of  the  case  shows  this  was  a  popular  per 
version  of  the  day  instead  of  truth.  He  correctly  states 
that 

"the  desperation  to  which  the  people  were  brought 
by  the  system  of  guerrilla  raids  can  hardly  be  described. 
In  the  year  1864  there  was  not  a  county  in  the  State 
that  was  exempt  from  their  outrages." 

Yet  he  condemns  the  methods  by  which  the  Kentucky 
officers  sought  to  stamp  out  the  evil. 

No  word  of  censure  does  Shaler  have  for  the  conduct  of 
Confederate  officers.  He  distinguishes  between  guerrillas 
and  Confederates,  although  the  records  show  that  the 
guerrillas  were  appointed,  authorized,  and  sent  out  by 
Confederate  authority.  Although  it  is  shown  in  the 
official  reports  of  Confederate  officers,  and  in  Collins's 
Annals,  that  John  Morgan's  raiders  indulged  in  much 
unjustifiable  conduct,  no  word  of  condemnation  has  the 


280  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

historian  Shaler.  On  the  contrary,  he  finds  that  Morgan 
was  the  chevalier  of  the  war,  without  fear  and  without 
reproach.  He  enlarges  upon  his  "audacity,  swiftness, 
and  fertility  of  resources,"  and  commends  the  "endurance 
and  vigor  of  action"  of  his  raiders. 

The  historians  Collins  and  Smith  are  alike  in  tone  to 
Shaler,  and  in  their  unfair  renderings  of  all  that  transpired 
in  Kentucky  during  the  war  there  is  an  exhibition  of 
sympathy  with  the  Confederate  cause,  and  an  antagonism 
to  the  Union  cause  which  brings  to  mind  the  exaggera 
tions  and  distortions  which  were  prevalent  while  the 
struggle  was  on. 

The  feeling  of  the  Southern  sympathizers  in  Kentucky 
was  not  only  bitterly  against  the  Union  cause,  it  was 
ardently  enlisted  on  behalf  of  the  Southern  cause.  There 
was  rejoicing  at  every  National  defeat,  and  depression 
over  every  Confederate  defeat.  The  Federal  side  was 
despised  and  the  Confederate  side  was  worshipped.  U pon 
the  subject,  therefore,  of  dealing  with  citizens  who  were 
animated  by  such  feeling,  it  is  well  to  consider  how  and 
in  what  manner  the  Confederates  dealt  with  the  people 
within  their  jurisdiction  who  favored  the  Union  and  not 
the  Confederacy.  As  early  as  August  14,  1861,  the 
President  of  the  Confederacy  issued  a  proclamation  on  the 
subject,  known  as  the  Proclamation  of  Banishment.  It 
was  made  pursuant  to  an  act  of  the  Confederate  Con 
gress,  and  duly  warned  every  male  citizen  of  the  United 
States  who  was  fourteen  years  of  age  or  upwards,  then 
within  the  Confederate  States,  and  adhering  to  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  to  depart  from  the  Con 
federate  States  within  forty  days,  otherwise  they  would 
be  treated  as  alien  enemies.  It  was  graciously  provided, 
however,  that  such  citizens  may  remain  if  they  acknowl 
edge  in  due  form  the  authority  of  the  Confederacy,  and 
declare  their  intention  to  become  citizens  thereof.  No 
such  conditions  were  imposed  upon  the  citizens  of  Ken- 


Hallucinations  281 

tucky  by  the  Federal  authorities.  Very  many  of  its 
population  in  complete  sympathy  with  the  South  resided 
in  the  State  continuously  during  the  war.  Compared 
with  the  number  of  such  citizens,  the  number  of  those 
who  were  for  some  cause,  or  at  least  alleged  cause,  inter 
fered  with,  was  exceedingly  small.  The  instinct  of  self- 
preservation  moved  the  Confederacy  to  make  a  sweeping 
order  of  banishment,  but  in  Kentucky  the  same  instinct 
was  restrained  within  degrees  of  moderation  unknown  to 
the  Southern  government,  which  was  idolized  by  those  in 
sympathy  with  it.  The  knowledge  of  this  fact  at  the 
time  ought  to  have  moderated  the  passions  of  the  hour, 
and  especially  it  ought  to  cause  writers  of  history  to 
refrain  from  iterating  the  abuse  and  denunciations  which 
were  so  abundant  while  the  trouble  of  war  was  upon  the 
country.  Yet  Shaler's  History,  and  especially  Collins's 
Annals,  abound  in  these  criminations,  and  the  echo  of 
them  has  so  gone  into  many  general  histories. 

It  is  the  same  in  regard  to  retaliatory  acts.  Retalia 
tion  was  not  confined  to  one  side  alone.  It  was  practised 
by  both,  and  if  the  one  is  condemned  for  it,  both  should 
be.  On  the  first  of  May,  1863,  the  Confederate  Congress 
enacted  a  remarkable  law  on  the  subject — especially 
remarkable  in  the  light  of  subsequent  events.  Section  3 
of  the  act  provided  that  for  the  violation  of  the  laws  and 
usages  of  war  by  those  acting  under  the  authority  of  the 
United  States  the  President  is  authorized  to  cause  full 
and  complete  retaliation  to  be  made.  Section  4  pro 
vides  that  every  white  person,  being  a  commissioned 
officer,  who  shall  command  negro  troops  shall,  if  captured, 
be  put  to  death.1 

The  instinct  of  self-preservation  led  the  Confederate 
authorities  to  adopt  stringent  methods  to  defeat  what 
they  regarded  as  gross  misconduct  on  the  part  of  the 

1  See  Appendix,  §  22,  p  354. 


282  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

United  States  forces.  So  also  in  Kentucky,  the  instinct 
of  self-preservation  caused  retaliatory  measures  to  be 
adopted,  to  stem,  if  possible,  the  wild  tide  of  guerrilla 
outrages.  That  such  harsh  measures  were  adopted  by 
both  sides  ought  to  be  shown  by  the  impartial  historian, 
and  one  side  ought  not  to  be  condemned  as  brutal  while 
the  other  is  made  to  appear  without  blame. 

In  the  year  1863  there  were  two  candidates  for  Gov 
ernor,  Thomas  E.  Bramlette  and  Charles  A.  Wickliffe. 
Both  were  Union  men,  but  Wickliffe  had  become 
dissatisfied  with  the  conduct  of  the  war  for  the  Union, 
while  Bramlette,  at  that  time,  was  in  no  way  disaffected. 
At  the  election  in  August  Bramlette  received  67,586 
votes,  and  Wickliffe  17,344;  the  total  vote  being  almost 
85,000.  At  the  time,  the  complaint  was  made  of  military 
interference  at  the  polls,  and  Bramlette's  election  was 
attributed  to  this  cause.  Collins  says  40,000  were  refused 
a  vote  or  else  kept  from  the  polls  by  military  intimida 
tion.  Shaler  also  tells  of  the  growing  hatred  of  such 
military  interference.  Smith,  in  his  history,  says: 
"Under  the  military  surveillance  of  the  election  the 
Union  candidates  were  all  elected  with  little  opposition/' 

In  all  this  a  peculiar  thing  appears:  Shaler  himself 
shows  that  if  we  add  to  the  85,000  votes  cast  at  this 
election  the  number  of  men  who  had  gone  out  as 
soldiers,  it  will  make  the  full  vote  of  the  State.  It  is 
easy  to  see  that  this  is  true.  The  total  vote  cast  in  1860, 
it  the  Presidential  election,  was  145,862.  Now,  if  we 
allow  20,000  Confederate  soldiers  gone  from  the  State, 
and  only  40,000  Federal  soldiers,  there  is  a  total  of 
60,000;  which,  added  to  the  85,000,  makes  145,000  votes. 
How,  then,  can  it  be,  as  Collins  says,  that  40,000  were 
kept  from  voting? 

In  the  same  way,  when  other  wholesale  charges  are 
investigated,  they  turn  out  to  be  groundless. 

In   the   year  following,  Governor   Bramlette   himself, 


Hallucinations  283 

and  with  him  many  of  the  Union  men  of  the  State, 
became  antagonistic  to  the  administration  of  President 
Lincoln.  Various  causes  contributed  to  the  change,  and 
many  insisted  that  they  had  not  changed,  but  that  the 
administration  had  changed.  Emancipation  influenced 
some ;  others  were  irritated  by  the  presence  of  Federal 
soldiers.  Whatever  ill-fortune  came  was  laid  at  the  door 
of  the  administration,  and  it  became  popular  to  speak 
harshly  of  President  Lincoln.1 

But  there  was  always  an  old  guard  of  the  tried  and 
faithful  Unionists  who  stood  by  the  colors.  At  the 
Presidential  election  in  1864  nearly  38,000  voted  for  Lin 
coln,  while  64,000  voted  for  McClellan.  The  Union  men 
who  voted  for  McClellan  were  still  for  the  Union,  and 
for  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  only  they  believed 
McClellan  would  put  down  the  rebellion  more  success, 
fully  than  Lincoln. 

This  singular  hallucination  was  not  peculiar  to  Ken 
tucky.  It  pervaded  the  States  North  to  such  an  extent 
the  popular  vote  for  Lincoln  was  but  little  larger  than 
that  for  McClellan — being  2,200,000  for  Lincoln  and 
1,800,000  for  McClellan.  Lincoln's  majority  in  Indiana 
was  only  10,000,  and  in  Ohio  McClellan  received  205,000 
votes. 

Thus  in  the  North  as  well  as  in  Kentucky  many  fell 
into  the  delusion  that  McClellan  could  in  some  way  sup 
press  the  rebellion  and  end  the  war  better  than  Lincoln, 
but  all  this  class  still  believed  in  the  Union  and  were 
opposed  to  its  dismemberment. 

One  of  the  hallucinations  of  the  war  time  was  the  well- 
known  claim  on  the  part  of  the  Southern  people  of  their 
own  superiority  over  the  Northern  people  in  many 
particulars,  and  especially  in  courage  and  military 
prowess.  The  records  and  literature  of  the  period 

1  See  Appendix,  §  23,  p.  354- 


284  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

abound  in  expressions  of  this  claim.  All  this  might  well 
be  left  unnoticed  by  the  historian,  or  at  most  be  men 
tioned  as  one  of  the  harmless  features  of  the  times.  But 
for  the  historian  gravely  to  assert  the  same  as  a  fact  is  a 
reflection  either  upon  his  judgment  or  his  fairness. 

Especially  is  this  true  when  it  is  made  to  appear  that 
in  the  division  of  the  Kentucky  people  those  who  sup 
ported  the  Southern  side  were  in  some  way  superior  to 
those  who  adhered  to  the  Union. 

Of  those  who  went  south,  nineteen  became  general 
officers,  and  twenty-eight  Unionists  became  general 
officers.  If  the  personal  claims  of  their  military  leaders 
are  investigated  one  by  one,  it  will  be  found  that  they 
are  much  alike.  All  of  the  Federal  generals  were  native- 
born  Kentuckians,  but  not  all  the  Confederates  were. 
Many  of  both  sides  had  distinguished  ancestry.  The 
military  services  they  rendered  were  alike  creditable. 

One  of  the  unfortunate  features  of  the  war  in  Kentucky 
was  the  disunion  of  families.  On  both  sides  were  found 
men  of  the  same  name — brothers  and  near  relatives.  If 
the  casuist  should  desire  to  determine  which  set  of  men 
were  of  the  higher  order — those  who  went  South  or  those 
who  stood  by  the  Union,  perhaps  the  only  clue  he  could 
have  would  be  the  relative  merit  of  the  respective  causes 
espoused,  thus  indicating  character  by  the  choice  made. 
The  result  would  be  that  those  persons  who  regarded  the 
Southern  Confederacy  as  higher  and  holier  than  the  State 
or  National  government  would  decide  that  way;  those 
who  have  real  regard  for  States'  rights,  and  a  true 
estimate  of  the  value  of  the  National  Union,  might  decide 
to  the  contrary. 

But  the  hallucination  of  the  hour,  that  whatever  was 
Southern  had  a  flavor  of  superiority,  and  that  the  Union 
cause  was  on  a  lower  plane,  has  been  duly  brought  for 
ward  as  a  fact,  notably  by  the  historian  Shaler. 

He  makes  it  appear  that  "40,000  of  the  natural  leaders 


Hallucinations  285 

and  fighting  population  of  the  State"  left  at  once  for  the 
South  in  September,  1861  (p.  269).  Then  he  estimates 
the  number  to  be  35,000  (p.  282).  He  also  finds  that  the 
State  Guard  amounted  to  about  15,000  men  (p.  246). 
Then  he  says  the  State  Guard  consisted  of  10,000  men 
(p.  257).  Then  that  the  State  Guard  as  a  whole  went 
over  to  the  Confederacy  (p.  259).  With  the  idea,  then, 
that  thirty-five  or  forty  thousand,  including  the  whole 
State  Guard,  went  out  at  once  in  the  early  fall  of  1861,  it 
is  natural  that  he  should  write: 

"  It  would  require  many  pages  to  give  even  a  list  of  the 
prominent  citizens  of  the  State  who  passed  its  borders  on 
the  way  to  the  Southern  army.  In  the  month  following  the 
abandonment  of  neutrality,  the  roads  were  filled  with  the 
hurrying  throng  of  horsemen  and  of  wagons  conveying  muni 
tions  on  their  way  to  the  Confederate  camp  that  had  been 
pitched  beyond  the  southern  and  eastern  borders  of  the  State 
for  their  reception. 

"  The  Federal  government  pressed  what  troops  were  avail 
able  for  service  in  the  State,  but  for  a  month  or  more  the 
central  part  of  the  Commonwealth  was  held  by  the  recruits 
that  had  been  gathering  at  Camp  Dick  Robinson  and  by  the 
companies  of  Home  Guards.  The  process  of  enlistment  in 
the  Federal  regiments  went  rapidly  forward — but  the  material 
fit  for  immediate  service  had  left  the  State  to  return  as 
invaders." 

In  other  words,  as  he  expressed  it  in  another  place,  the 
loss  of  40,000  of  the  natural  fighting  population  "had  left 
the  State  with  little  material  that  could  be  made  into 
good  soldiers."  (P.  269.) 

In  another  place  he  speaks  of  the  Commonwealth 
having  lost  the  first  flower  of  her  military  material. 
(P.  282.) 

All  of  this  extravagant  writing  turns  pale  and  sickly 
when  read  in  the  light  of  the  official  report  of  the  Con 
federate  Adjutant-  and  Inspector-General  Cooper  made  in 


286  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

February,  1862,  showing  that  the  actual  number  of  men 
up  to  that  date  furnished  to  the  Confederacy  by  the 
State  of  Kentucky  was  7950. 

But  the  extravagant  writing  is  based  on  the  hallucina 
tion  of  the  hour  that  nothing  was  so  grand  and  glorious  as 
the  Southern  cause,  and  we  are  prepared  for  the  final 
conclusion  of  this  historian  as  follows : 

"The  Kentucky  troops  in  the  Confederate  army,  being  fewer 
in  number  and  from  the  richer  and  more  educated  part  of  the 
State,  were,  as  a  whole,  a  finer  body  of  men  than  the  Federal 
troops  from  the  Commonwealth.  The  rebel  exiles  were  the 
first  running  from  the  press,  and  naturally  had  the  peculiar 
quality  of  their  vintage  more  clearly  marked  than  the  later 
product."  (P.  375.) 

It  is  this  character  of  writing,  putting  sentiment  instead 
of  the  facts  of  the  case,  that  calls  for  an  account  that  will 
at  least  suggest  the  sources  of  correct  information.  If  Z. 
F.  Smith  is  correct  in  his  history,  it  was  about  10,000 
who  left  Kentucky  for  the  Confederacy  in  the  fall  of  1861. 
If  the  Inspector-General  of  the  Confederacy,  writing  an 
official  document  for  practical  use,  knew  the  situation, 
there  were  exactly  7950  Kentuckians  in  the  Confederate 
service  in  February,  1862. 

It  is  a  fact  also  that  all  of  the  State  Guard  did  not  go 
south.  Many  members  of  it  remained.  In  the  city  of 
Lexington  there  were  three  companies;  one  went  south 
with  Captain  John  Morgan;  two  remained.  One  known 
as  the  "Chasseurs,"  under  Captain  Sanders  Bruce,  be 
came  the  nucleus  of  a  regiment,  the  Twentieth  Kentucky 
Infantry,  and  this  company  furnished  forty  commissioned 
officers  to  the  volunteer  service.  The  other,  known  as 
the  "Old  Infantry,"  under  Captain  S.  W.  Price,  became 
the  nucleus  of  the  Twenty-first  Kentucky  Infantry,  and 
was  led  by  Colonel  W.  S.  Price  until  he  was  made  a 
brigadier,  general. 


Hallucinations  287 

Captain  D.  W.  Lindsay,  commanding  a  company  in 
Roger  Hanson's  regiment  of  the  State  Guard,  struck  his 
company  tents  and  marched  his  company  home  from  an 
encampment  held  in  May,  1861,  in  Woodford  County 
because  recruiting  for  the  Confederate  army  was  allowed 
in  the  encampment,  and,  with  the  assistance  of  G.  W. 
Monroe,  Orlando  Brown,  and  other  members  of  the  com 
pany,  recruited,  organized,  and  took  the  field  with  the 
Twenty-second  Kentucky  Volunteer  Infantry.  And 
Captain  R.  M.  Kelly,  who  was  also  an  officer  in  the  same 
State  Guard  regiment,  left  the  same  and  became  Colonel 
of  the  famous  Fourth  Kentucky  Volunteer  Infantry. 

Other  like  instances  might  be  mentioned. 

Now,  if  the  facts  are  to  be  the  basis  of  judgment, 
instead  of  the  invincible  hallucination  which  so  enchained 
the  mind  of  the  historian,  and  if  we  consider  the  report 
of  the  Confederate  Adjutant-  and  Inspector-General,  that 
in  February,  1862,  there  were  7950  Confederates  from 
Kentucky,  and  then  take  the  report  of  the  Adjutant- 
General  of  Kentucky  that  there  were  before  that  date 
38  Kentucky  Union  organizations,  exclusive  of  Home 
Guards,  and  that  these  were  enlisted  to  the  number  of 
near  30,00x3  in  the  months  of  July,  August,  and  Septem 
ber,  1861,  it  would  seem  that  it  is  nearer  the  truth  to 
say  the  "first  running  of  the  press"  was  to  the  Union 
regiments. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

PATRIOTISM   OF  THE   KENTUCKY   UNIONISTS 

THE  great  value  of  the  service  of  the  Kentucky 
Unionists  to  the  general  cause  of  the  Union  was 
in  the  first  place  their  holding  Kentucky  in  the  Union. 
Whether  it  be  agreed  that  other  States — notably  Tennes 
see  and  Virginia — were  led  into  secession  by  "  hasty  and 
inconsiderate  action,"  or  by  the  free  will  of  their  people, 
there  was  great  danger  that  the  same  methods  which 
accomplished  the  secession  of  those  States  might  have 
been  successful  in  Kentucky.  With  the  advantage  of  the 
machinery  of  the  State  government,  the  energetic  use  of 
argument  and  persuasion,  based  upon  interests  and  feel 
ings  identified  with  the  seceded  States,  the  odds  were 
fearfully  against  the  Unionists.  If  the  Union  leaders 
had  been  less  active  and  earnest,  or  if  the  people  had 
been  less  firm  in  their  devotion  to  the  Union,  the  scales 
might  have  turned  otherwise  than  as  they  did.  It 
required  wisdom  and  prudence  and  self-control  on  the 
part  of  the  leaders  to  prevent  a  headlong  action,  and  it 
also  required  intelligent  perception  of  the  real  situation 
on  the  part  of  the  voters  to  prevent  them  from  being  led 
into  what  was  called  at  the  time  "the  vortex  of  seces 
sion."  Whether  or  not  Kentucky  was  a  turning  weight 
in  the  scale,  the  fact  that  it  remained  in  the  Union  made 
the  restoration  less  difficult  than  it  would  have  been  if  it 
had  followed  the  other  Southern  States. 

The  Unionists  of  Kentucky  served  their  State  and 
country  under  much  unjust  censure.  At  the  first  they 
were  blamed  for  what  they  did  in  holding  the  State  in  the 

288 


Patriotism  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  289 

Union.  At  the  last  they  were  blamed  for  all  the  miseries 
which  necessarily  attended  a  condition  of  war.  They 
were  subjected  to  much  abuse  at  the  time,  but  it  is  not 
just  that  the  evil-speaking  that  was  current  should  stand 
as  the  history  of  the  period,  and  in  writing  general  accounts 
it  is  error  for  the  historian  to  state  the  expressions  of  one 
side  of  a  sharp  controversy  as  if  they  showed  the  whole 
case. 

The  administration  of  President  Lincoln  did  not  deserve 
all  the  malediction  it  received  in  Kentucky.  It  was  fair 
in  dealing  with  the  Kentucky  people,  but  they  became 
restless  under  long-continued  military  control,  and  some 
strongly  expressed  their  dissatisfaction,  forgetful  that 
war  was  raging. 

The  administration  had  to  contend  with  a  gigantic 
opposition,  and  its  steps  on  the  battle-ground  of  Ken 
tucky  could  not  always  please.  Antagonisms  arose,  and 
hard  speeches  were  indulged  in.  But  the  condemnation 
of  the  war  policy  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  justifiable  any 
more  than  every  specific  act  of  officers  and  agents  was 
justifiable.  The  war  had  to  be  carried  on  even  if  mis 
takes  did  occur  and  antagonisms  did  arise,  and  it  was  well 
for  the  country  that  in  Kentucky  there  were  great  men 
who  could  overlook  minor  matters,  and  stand  firmly  by 
the  administration  through  all  its  troubles. 

The  historians  freely  condemn  "  unwarranted  transgres 
sions"  of  the  laws  both  by  the  State  and  National 
authorities  (Shaler,  345;  Collins,  i,  130).  It  is  said  that 
"the  iniquitous  system  of  interference  with  the  civil  law 
had  now  (1864)  pretty  thoroughly  separated  the  better 
class  of  Union  men  from  all  sympathies  with  the  Fede 
ral  government"  (Shaler,  348).  Yet  the  example  was 
followed  in  the  Confederacy  by  providing  for  the  enlist 
ment  of  negroes  under  the  advice  of  General  Lee  and 
President  Davis.  See  Davis  (History,  pages  515  to 
519).  The  draft  is  also  condemned,  while  there 
19 


290  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

is  no  word  against  Confederate  conscription  even  in 
Kentucky.1 

Animadversions  are  continued  after  the  close  of  the 
war,  making  history  say  that  the  troops  should  have 
been  withdrawn  from  Kentucky  sooner,  but  "the  appe 
tite  for  military  methods  had  gained  a  very  strong  hold 
on  the  United  States,"  and  that  "it  suited  the  purpose 
of  a  political  body  that  had  fattened  on  the  system  of 
passes  and  permits  to  maintain  in  time  of  peace  a  system 
that  had  its  only  justification  in  the  hard  conditions  of 
war,  if  it  can  find  justification  at  all."  (Shaler,  362.) 

This  historian,  true  to  such  exacting  philosophy,  con 
demns,  as  a  rule,  whatever  was  done  in  time  of  war  as 
well  as  peace,  and,  writing  for  history  the  side  of  the  case 
as  expressed  by  the  disaffected  at  the  time,  only  finds 
that  a  good  word  can  be  spoken  for  President  Lincoln 
after  the  reins  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  his  successor. 
Forgetful  that  Lincoln  had  been,  all  through  the  weary 
years  of  the  war,  subjected  to  bitter  reproaches  by  those 
whom  this  writer  most  admires,  he  says  after  his  death : 

"If  Lincoln  had  lived  we  may  well  believe  that  his 
admirable  good  sense,  which  enabled  him  to  help  his 
native  State  whenever  he  could  see  her  in  trouble,  would 
have  removed  these  barriers  to  the  tide  of  peace  and 
goodwill."  (P.  362.) 

Nor  does  he  hesitate  to  say,  immediately  following, 
that  which  severely  reflects  upon  Lincoln's  administration 
in  the  last  two  years  of  the  war.  Speaking  of  the  mili 
tary  authorities  in  Kentucky,  his  words  are : 

"In  two  years  they  did  what  neither  the  Confederate 
solicitations  nor  arms  could  do:  they  had  driven  the 
people,  not  out  of  their  affection  for  the  cause  of  the 
National  Constitution,  but  out  of  all  sympathy  with  the 
ways  of  its  representatives  then  in  power."  (P.  364.) 

1  See  Appendix,  §  24,  p.  354- 


Patriotism  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  291 

This  attitude  of  some  of  the  people  in  Kentucky 
toward  the  administration  then  receives  the  following 
approbation : 

"A  more  complete  or  more  wholesome  discontent  never 
affected  the  Kentucky  people.  A  contest  into  which 
they  had  entered  with  really  noble  emotions  had  degener 
ated  into  a  petty  political  game.  They  felt  that  their 
vast  sacrifices  had  brought  them  sore  evils  for  reward." 

(p.  364.) 

If  history  can  ever  be  made  to  reflect  a  true  view  of 
the  situation  in  Kentucky,  it  will  show  that  the  discontent 
never  reached  the  point  of  giving  up  the  Union,  and  it 
will  further  show  the  wholesome  patriotism  was  in  that 
body  of  unflinching  supporters  of  the  administration  who 
respected  and  honored  Abraham  Lincoln  while  he  was 
alive  as  well  as  after  his  death,  and  who  were  unaffected 
by  the  popular  clamors  of  the  day  against  him  and  his 
administration. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Union  soldiers  of  Kentucky 
fought  the  battle  for  the  Union  in  a  way  peculiarly 
necessary,  and  better  than  it  could  have  been  done  by 
any  other  troops.  While  the  bulk  of  these  soldiers  were 
incorporated  with  the  great  armies  at  the  front,  and  per 
formed  their  duty  there  in  the  same  manner  as  the  regi 
ments  from  the  States  North,  yet  a  large  number  served  in 
the  State.  In  organized  regiments  and  in  organized  militia 
they  were  engaged  from  the  very  beginning  in  holding 
back  Confederate  advances  so  that  they  rarely  reached 
the  northern  border,  and  were  limited  to  the  middle 
and  southerly  parts  of  the  State.  In  the  war  time  there 
was  railroad  connection  from  Cincinnati  to  Lexington,  and 
from  Lexington  to  Louisville,  and  from  Louisville  to 
Nashville  and  beyond.  The  existence  of  the  large  armies 
at  the  front  was  dependent  upon  these  roads,  especially 
the  one  from  Louisville  to  Nashville.  Their  protection 
was  essential.  The  Louisville  and  Nashville  road  was 


292  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

taxed  to  its  utmost  with  heavy  trains  carrying  supplies 
southward.  Long  trains  of  freight  cars  loaded  with  pro 
visions  and  munitions  of  war  carried  soldiers  on  the 
roofs  of  the  cars.  Returning  trains  were  laden  with  the 
sick  and  wounded.  The  requirements  became  so  great 
that  in  the  absence  of  a  bridge  at  Louisville  tracks  were 
laid  through  the  streets  of  the  city  to  the  water's  edge, 
and  were  also  brought  to  the  water  on  the  opposite  side. 
Loaded  cars  were  ferried  over  and  drawn  up  the  bank  and 
hurried  down  the  road.  It  is  remembered  by  those  who 
were  with  the  armies  at  the  front  that  cars  appeared 
labelled  with  the  names  of  railroads  all  over  the  North 
and  West.  General  Sherman  says  in  his  Memoirs  that 
he  was  puzzled  to  know  how  the  respective  roads  would 
ever  recover  their  cars,  and  the  soldiers  remember  that 
the  appearance  of  these  cars,  so  labelled,  caused  im 
mense  cheering,  for  they  knew  that  in  some  way  supplies 
were  being  brought  from  far  back  in  the  rear. 

It  was  the  importanceof  the  railroads  through  Kentucky 
which  caused  General  Sherman  to  urge  upon  General 
D.  W.  Lindsay,  who  was  then  at  the  front  in  command 
of  a  brigade,  to  return  at  once  to  Kentucky  and  accept 
the  position  of  Adjutant-General  of  the  State,  which  had 
been  tendered  to  him  in  order  that  he  might  by  his  great 
energy  and  knowledge  of  the  situation  effectively  aid  in 
the  work  of  organizing  troops  in  the  State  to  protect  the 
essential  lines  of  communication. 

To  defend  and  protect  these  lines  no  troops  were  so 
well  adapted  as  those  who  were  familiar  with  the  State. 
It  has  already  been  shown  that  early  in  the  struggle  it 
was  Colonel  John  M.  Harlan  with  Kentucky  troops  who 
came  upon  General  Morgan  at  Rolling  Fork  and  forced 
him  to  abandon  the  line  of  the  Louisville  and  Nashville 
Railroad,  and  also  that  Morgan's  exit  from  the  State  at 
that  time  was  hastened  by  other  Kentuckians  led  by 
Colonel  William  A.  Hoskins. 


Patriotism  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  293 

Also  that,  when  Morgan  came  at  other  times,  his  work 
of  destruction  was  stopped  by  Kentucky  troops.  His 
expressed  purpose  in  1864  to  cut  the  road  from  Cincin 
nati  to  Lexington,  and  then  move  on  to  the  Louisville 
and  Nashville  road,  was  frustrated  before  he  had  time  to 
injure  either.  Others  besides  Morgan,  notably  Generals 
Lyon  and  Pegram,  and  many  lesser  raiders,  were 
successfully  prevented  from  burning  bridges  and  tearing 
up  tracks.  It  will  be  remembered  that  in  1862  Home 
Guards  stopped  a  column  of  Morgan's  troops  at  Augusta, 
and  by  a  bloody  fight  prevented  the  execution  of  a  plan 
to  cross  the  Ohio  and  move  down  upon  Cincinnati;  also, 
that  when  Morgan  did  cross  the  Ohio  in  1863  the  Ken 
tucky  pursuers  were  so  hard  upon  his  track  that  at  one 
time  he  travelled  ninety  miles  in  thirty-five  hours,  and 
they  finally  captured  him. 

The  city  of  Louisville  was  a  place  of  immense  storage 
of  supplies  necessary  for  the  army,  the  destruction  of 
which  would  have  been  an  enormous  loss.  Time  and 
again  Louisville  was  threatened,  but  never  taken.  The 
Kentucky  Unionists  were  conspicuous  in  defending  all 
these  interests.  In  defending  their  State  they  were  de 
fending  the  National  cause. 

If  it  had  been  true  that  Kentucky  had  joined  the 
Confederacy,  and  that  three  times  as  many  of  her  citizens 
had  gone  into  the  Confederate  army  as  went  into  the 
Union  army,  it  might  have  been  true  that  great  battles 
would  have  been  fought  upon  the  soil  of  Ohio,  Indiana, 
and  Illinois,  and  it  is  from  such  reflections  that  the  value 
of  the  services  of  the  Unionists  of  Kentucky  can  best  be 
appreciated.  In  the  letter  of  General  Humphrey  Mar 
shall  to  Governor  Magoffin,  mentioned  in  another  chap 
ter,  he  uses  this  language: 

"In  what  does  the  Kentucky  soldier  differ  from  the  aboli 
tionist  from  Massachusetts  who  is  serving  in  the  army  of  the 
United  States  ?  Do  they  not  sleep  at  the  same  camp-fire,  eat 


294  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

from  the  same  messpan,  and  draw  pay  from  the  same  treasure? 
Are  they  not  commanded  by  the  same  officers,  and  used  to 
carry  forward  the  same  nefarious  policy?" 

In  his  own  phraseology  he  expresses  the  exact  truth. 
The  defenders  of  the  Union  were  the  same  whether  from 
Massachusetts  or  Kentucky.  Shoulder  to  shoulder  they 
stood  for  the  same  great  cause,  not  for  abolition,  not  for 
subjugation,  not  for  conquest,  but  to  maintain  the  honor 
of  the  flag,  and  to  save  from  destruction  the  American 
Union. 

Nothing  can  be  more  plain  than  that  the  Kentucky 
Unionists  adhered  to  the  Union  from  a  clear  perception 
of  its  inestimable  value,  and  an  equally  clear  perception 
of  the  fact  that  its  dismemberment  would  be  absolutely 
ruinous.  The  expression  of  this  sentiment  is  found  in 
the  speeches  of  the  leaders,  in  the  newspapers,  and  in  the 
resolutions  of  the  local  conventions. 

It  is  to  the  credit  of  these  people  that  they  resisted  the 
frantic  appeals  to  take  sides  with  the  seceded  Slave  States 
to  which  they  were  bound  by  many  ties.  It  was  not  in 
anger  but  in  sorrow  that  they  joined  hands  with  the  other 
loyal  States  to  uphold  the  cause  of  the  Union.  There  is 
a  genuine  pathos  in  the  speech  of  Hon.  Archibald  Dixon 
at  Louisville  in  April,  1861 : 

"My  sympathies  are  with  the  South,  but  I  am  not 
prepared  to  aid  her  in  fighting  against  our  government. 
If  we  remain  in  the  Union  we  are  safe." 

And  again : 

"In  a  just  cause  I  will  defend  our  State  at  every  point 
and  against  every  combination,  but  when  she  battles 
against  the  law  and  the  Constitution,  I  have  not  the 
heart,  I  have  not  the  courage,  to  do  it.  I  cannot  do  it ; 
I  will  not  do  it.  Never  strike  at  that  flag  of  our  country 
nor  follow  Davis  to  tear  down  the  Stars  and  Stripes." 

Colonel  James  F.  Buckner  said  in  a  speech  in  Christian 
County : 


Patriotism  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  295 

"If  the  Union  is  lost,  all  is  lost.  Of  what  use  are  my 
slaves  if  we  have  no  government?  Life  itself  will  be 
worthless  if  this  glorious  Union  is  destroyed." 

In  1864  Governor  Bramlette  issued  the  following  call: 

"Kentuckians  to  the  rescue.  I  want  10,000  six-months 
men  at  once.  Do  not  hesitate  to  come.  I  will  lead  you. 
Let  us  help  finish  this  war  and  save  our  government." 

The  stand  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  was  well  ex 
pressed  in  the  Holt  letter  already  referred  to : 

"It  is  in  vain  for  the  revolutionists  to  exclaim  that  this  is 
'subjugation.'  It  is  so  precisely  in  the  sense  in  which  you  and 
I  and  all  law-abiding  citizens  are  subjugated.  .  .  .  We 
impose  no  burden  which  we  ourselves  do  not  bear;  we  claim 
no  privilege  or  blessing  which  our  brethren  of  the  South  shall 
not  equally  share.  Their  country  is  our  country,  and  ours  is 
theirs,  and  that  unity  both  of  country  and  government,  which 
the  providence  of  God  and  the  compacts  of  men  have  created, 
we  could  not  ourselves  without  immolation  destroy,  nor  can 
we  permit  it  to  be  destroyed  by  others." 

On  the  subject  of  the  importance  of  preserving  the 
Union  Mr.  Holt  said  in  his  letter: 

"No  contest  so  momentous  as  this  has  arisen  in  human 
history,  for  amid  all  the  conflicts  of  men  and  nations  the 
life  of  no  such  government  as  ours  has  been  at  stake." 

The  preservation  of  the  American  Union  was  the  great 
est  achievement  ever  made  by  any  portion  of  the  human 
race.  No  other  event  can  compare  with  it  in  the 
magnitude  of  its  importance.  Great  as  was  the  founding 
of  the  Republic,  it  would  have  become  a  mockery  if  the 
movement  of  1861  had  subverted  and  destroyed  it.  All 
the  predictions  of  the  impossibility  of  a  free  republic 
would  have  been  fulfilled,  and  instead  of  the  establish 
ment  of  the  principles  of  liberty  and  equality,  monarchical 
institutions  would  have  been  set  up  in  America.  The 
successful  assertion  of  the  right  of  secession  would  have 
been  fatal  to  the  existence  of  a  republican  nationality 


296  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  capable  of  resisting  the 
encroachments  of  European  monarchy.  Instead  of  the 
United  States  of  to-day,  which  without  a  question  asserts 
the  Monroe  Doctrine,  the  condition  of  the  South  Ameri 
can  republics  would  prevail  in  North  America,  with  no 
power  anywhere  to  resist  alliances  with  foreign  nations. 

This  truth  was  expressed  in  an  address  delivered  by 
Edward  Everett  July  4,  1861,  in  which  he  said:  "If  the 
Southern  Confederacy  is  recognized,  it  becomes  a  foreign 
power."  Then  he  asked  if  the  United  States  would 
surrender  its  territory  to  England,  France,  or  Spain. 
Why,  then,  should  it  surrender  to  the  Southern  Confede 
racy?  "Let  it  be  remembered,"  says  he,  "that  in  grant 
ing  to  the  seceding  States  jointly  and  severally  the  right 
to  leave  the  Union,  we  concede  to  them  the  right  of 
resuming,  if  they  please,  their  former  allegiance  to  Eng 
land,  France,  or  Spain.  It  rests  with  them,  or  any  one 
of  them,  if  the  right  of  secession  is  admitted,  again  to 
plant  a  European  government  side  by  side  with  that  of 
the  United  States  on  the  soil  of  America." 

If,  therefore,  it  was  praiseworthy  in  our  forefathers  to 
cast  off  the  British  yoke  and  erect  upon  this  continent  a 
government  by  the  people,  which  was  aptly  called  "a 
new  order  of  the  ages,"  what  could  they  themselves  con 
template  with  more  satisfaction,  if  permitted  to  view  the 
affairs  of  this  world,  than  the  preservation  by  their  des 
cendants  of  their  heritage  when  the  mighty  ordeal  came. 

The  earnest  utterances  of  Everett  and  Holt,  and 
hundreds  of  like  sort,  were  circulated  at  the  time.  In 
speeches  and  newspapers  and  in  conversation  the  same 
sentiments  were  reiterated,  and  the  great  watchword  of 
the  period  was  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 

When  the  attempt  is  made  to  disparage  or  mistake  the 
services  of  the  Union  leaders  of  Kentucky,  the  appeal  is 
to  the  records  of  the  period.  These  records  tell  the 
story  of  their  faithfulness  and  devotion  to  duty  under 


Patriotism  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists  297 

the  most  trying  circumstances,  which  constantly  wins 
admiration,  and  causes  them  to  stand  out  in  proportions 
truly  grand  and  heroic.  And  when  the  story  of  the 
services  of  the  Union  troops  furnished  by  Kentucky  is 
correctly  understood,  they,  too,  will  be  understood  as 
having  splendidly  performed  their  patriotic  duty. 

While  serving  their  country  they  obeyed  the  behests  of 
their  own  State.  By  the  act  of  enlistment  they  placed 
themselves  under  orders.  If  sent  to  the  front  to  do 
battle  in  connection  with  the  great  armies,  there  they 
were  found.  If  required  to  guard  long  lines  of  com 
munications,  they  did  that  duty.  If  ordered  to  police 
their  own  State,  they  engaged  in  that  service.  The 
entire  body  of  these  defenders  of  the  Union  cause, 
including  the  much-needed  and  much-used  Home  Guard 
organizations,  acted  throughout  the  war  under  the  orders 
of  the  constituted  authorities.  They  were  never  found 
roving  about  in  partisan  or  independent  bands.  The 
record  of  all  their  service,  as  shown  by  official  reports,  is 
singularly  free  from  any  conduct  inviting  criticism.  When 
the  war  ended,  the  survivors  re-entered  the  walks  of 
peace,  satisfied  with  the  grand  result,  and  willing  to  cast 
into  oblivion  all  the  animosities  engendered  by  four  years 
of  strife.  They  had  no  hatred  of  their  brothers  in  the 
Confederate  service  when  they  took  up  arms,  nor  when 
they  laid  them  down.  The  defence  of  the  Union  was  the 
inspiration  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists.  Living  in  a 
border  State,  they  saw  with  a  peculiar  distinctness  the 
evil  of  a  dismembered  Union,  and  threw  themselves  into 
the  ranks  of  its  defenders,  assured  that  only  in  national 
unity  could  permanent  peace  and  order  be  found.  Not 
withstanding  their  heroic  services,  they  have  received  but 
scanty  mention  in  the  histories,  and  much  of  that  men 
tion  does  them  injustice.  It  is  hoped  that  this  work  will 
serve  a  useful  purpose  in  leading  to  correct  views  concern 
ing  the  Unionists  of  Kentucky. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE   SOLDIERS 

AS  an  original  proposition  no  reason  exists  for  making 
any  comparisons  of  the  soldierly  qualities  of  the 
Kentuckians  on  the  respective  sides  in  the  war,  but  as 
great  injustice  has  been  done  to  the  Union  soldiers  in 
this  respect  by  the  historian  Shaler,  it  becomes  proper  to 
bring  forward  some  general  facts,  in  connection  with  a 
statement  of  the  services  of  these  Union  soldiers. 

He  says:  "The  Confederacy  received  the  youth  and 
strength  from  the  richest  part  of  the  Kentucky  soil.  The 
so-called  Blue  Grass  region,"  says  he,  "sent  the  greater 
part  of  its  men  of  the  richer  families  into  the  Confederate 
army,  while  the  Union  troops,  though  from  all  parts  of 
the  State,  came  in  greater  abundance  from  those  who 
dwelt  on  thinner  soils."  (P.  374.) 

He  also  says:  "Of  the  one  hundred  and  thirty 
thousand  or  more  Kentucky  men  who  bore  arms  during 
the  Civil  War  a  very  good  report  can  be  given.  Both  as 
infantry  and  cavalry  they  did  exceedingly  effective 
service  in  both  armies.  The  Kentucky  troops  in  the 
Confederate  army,  being  fewer  in  number  and  from  the 
richer  and  more  educated  part  of  the  State,  were  as  a 
whole  a  finer  body  of  men  than  the  Federal  troops  from 
the  Commonwealth."  (/#.) 

Speaking  of  the  soldiers  under  Confederate  General 
Morgan,  he  says: 

"  We  find  in  this  remarkable  body  of  men  a  great  capacity 
at  once  for  dash  and  for  endurance.  The  force  under  Morgan, 
which  owed  its  peculiar  excellence  more  to  the  quality  of  the 

298 


The  Soldiers  299 

men  and  subordinate  commanders  than  to  the  distinguished 
leader,  developed  a  new  feature  in  the  art  of  war  ;  vigilance, 
daring,  fertility  of  resource,  a  race-horse  power  of  hurling  all 
into  a  period  of  ceaseless  activity,  were  necessary  for  these 
wonderful  raids."  (P.  375.) 

He  also  says:  "The  history  of  the  Federal  brigades  of 
mounted  troops  makes  almost  as  good  a  showing  for 
these  qualities.  They  lacked  subordinate  officers  of  Mor 
gan's  type.  There  were  many  excellent  men  among  her 
officers,  but  no  one  brigade  had  such  lieutenants  as  Basil 
Duke,  Hines,  Smith,  Grigsby,  and  a  host  of  other 
extraordinary  men  that  led  his  forces."  (/#.) 

He  then  adds,  in  a  note  to  confirm  the  historic  state 
ment,  that  Basil  Duke  is  now  a  distinguished  lawyer, 
Hines  Chief-Justice  of  Kentucky,  Howard  Smith  Audi 
tor  and  railroad  commissioner,  Grigsby  a  prominent 
legislator  and  valuable  citizen. 

He  then  considers  the  infantry  troops,  and  as  an 
example,  to  show  that  the  Confederates  were  finer  troops 
than  the  Federals,  he  details  the  service  of  the  First 
Kentucky  brigade  (Confederate).  The  strength  of  this 
brigade  was,  as  he  states,  1140,  thus  making  this  small 
body  stand  as  the  type  of  the  best  infantry  soldiers  from 
Kentucky.  He  says  that  as  the  Federal  brigades  were 
made  up  of  regiments  from  different  States  it  is  "im 
possible  to  cite  any  instances  of  endurance  among  these 
troops  that  can  be  compared  with  that  of  the  First  Con 
federate  Kentucky  brigade."  He  adds,  somewhat  incon 
sistently,  that  the  history  of  individual  regiments  showed 
the  same  qualities,  but  the  point  made  by  the  historian 
is  that  the  Confederate  troops  from  Kentucky  were  finer 
troops  than  the  Federal  troops  from  Kentucky.  In  the 
cavalry  service  Morgan's  men  are  cited  as  the  illustration. 
In  the  infantry  service,  the  First  Confederate  Ken 
tucky  brigade  is  cited  as  the  illustration. 


300  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

He  then  says:  "It  could  be  made  clear,  if  space 
allowed  the  showing,  that  the  best  fighting  material  came 
from  the  richest  and  most  elevated  population  of  the 
Commonwealth"  (p.  377),  from  which  portion  he  says 
the  Confederate  soldiers  came. 

This  is  not  history,  but  rather  the  expression  of  views 
and  sentiment. 

Why  it  should  be  said  the  Blue  Grass  section  con 
tributed  its  best  material  to  the  Confederate  army,  and 
that  the  Union  troops  went  from  poorer  parts  of  the 
State,  or  why  the  best  fighting  material  on  either  side 
went  from  the  Blue  Grass  section,  there  is  nothing  to 
show.  More  men  went  into  the  Union  service  than  into 
the  Confederate  service  from  the  Blue  Grass,  and,  in  so 
far  as  any  recorded  accounts  go,  the  men  from  other 
sections  on  either  side  were  as  good  soldiers  as  those 
from  the  Blue  Grass. 

It  has  been  shown  that  this  historian  errs  greatly  in 
his  numbers.  In  one  instance  he  states  that  40,000  Con 
federates  went  out  at  once,  in  the  fall  of  1861,  and  then 
that  40,000  was  the  total  number  from  first  to  last,  both 
of  which  statements  are  incorrect,  as  shown  by  the 
quotations  from  the  records,  and  from  Confederate 
historians.  So  now,  when  he  uses  the  figures  30,000  or 
more,  he  is  manifestly  excessive,  and  so  also  when  he 
comes  to  describe  these  soldiers  and  tell  from  what  parts 
of  the  State  the  finest  came,  he  falls  into  like  errors. 

Shaler  having  given  the  First  Confederate  Kentucky 
brigade  as  the  example,  it  is  only  necessary  to  quote  the 
following  from  Colonel  Ed.  Porter  Thompson's  history 
of  that  brigade.  Colonel  Thompson  served  with  it,  and 
has  written  its  history.  He  says  of  the  soldiers  of  that 
command : 

"  They  represented  Kentucky  as  a  whole  and  not  any  par 
ticular  section  of  it,  not  any  particular  class  of  its  citizens. 
They  came  together  from  eighty-three  counties,  from  homes 


The  Soldiers  301 

dotting  the  State  line  from  the  Big  Sandy  to  the  Mississippi, 
from  the  Ohio  to  the  Tennessee  line,  from  the  mountains,  the 
Blue  Grass  regions,  and  the  western  plains  ;  from  city  and 
hamlet  and  country  places,  from  factories  and  shops,  mines 
and  farms,  from  schools,  commercial  houses  and  the  offices  of 
professional  men."  (P.  23.) 

Concerning  the  capacity  for  dash  and  endurance  and  for 
courage  and  invincible  determination  which  the  historian 
finds  in  Morgan's  men,  it  would  be  certainly  as  natural 
for  an  impartial  writer  to  cite  as  an  illustration  the  ser 
vices  of  the  Kentucky  regiments  who  contended  with 
Morgan,  and  pursued  and  captured  him,  and  twice  broke 
up  his  command,  as  to  cite  Morgan's  command,  giving 
the  names  of  his  subordinates. 

The  ability  of  Morgan's  subordinates  is  not  questioned, 
but  there  is  no  call  for  any  historian  to  enter  upon 
invidious  distinctions  between  them  and  the  Federal 
officers.  In  no  particular  did  the  men  named,  or  any 
other  Confederate  officers  from  Kentucky,  excel  as 
soldiers  or  citizens  such  Union  military  leaders  as 
Thomas  L.  Crittenden,  William  T.  Ward,  Thomas  J. 
Wood,  L.  H.  Rousseau,  Jerre  T.  Boyle,  Speed  S.  Fry, 
John  M.  Harlan,  James  S.  Jackson,  E.  H.  Hobson, 
John  T.  Croxton,  Green  Clay  Smith,  D.  W.  Lindsay,  E. 
H.  Murray,  T.  T.  Garrard,  B.  H.  Bristow,  R.  T.  Jacob, 
John  Mason  Brown,  J.  M.  Shackelford,  John  H.  Ward, 
and  scores  of  others  who  led  the  Union  troops  of 
Kentucky. 

The  turn  of  political  affairs  in  Kentucky  did  not  bring 
preferment  to  the  Union  leaders  in  the  State,  as  a  rule, 
but  Colonel  Thomas  B.  Cochran  became  chancellor  in 
Louisville,  and  Colonels  Morrow,  B.  F.  Buckner,  and 
others  were  circuit  judges,  and  J.  R.  Hindman  became 
Lieutenant-Governor;  John  M.  Harlan's  great  ability  is 
now  manifested  on  the  Supreme  Bench;  Green  Clay 
Smith  was  elected  to  Congress  in  1863  and  1865,  and  was 


302  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

made  a  Territorial  Governor;  B.  H.  Bristow  was  a  most 
distinguished  Cabinet  officer,  E.  H.  Murray  became 
Governor  of  Utah,  J.  M.  Shackelford  a  Federal  judge, 
William  H.  Hays  and  Walter  Evans  Federal  judges, 
and  as  honored  citizens  the  list  would  be  too  long  for 
mention  in  this  place. 

The  historian  Shaler  speaks  of  the  "Federal  brigades 
of  mounted  troops"  as  though  the  Kentucky  cavalry 
regiments  were  brigaded  together.  There  was  but  one 
such  organization,  but  that  one  not  only  almost,  but 
altogether,  made  as  splendid  a  showing  as  any  cavalry  on 
either  side  during  the  war.  From  1863  until  the  end  of 
the  war,  the  4th,  5th,  6th,  and  /th  regiments  of  Ken 
tucky  cavalry  constituted  one  brigade,  under  command  of 
Colonel  Lewis  D.  Watkins.  The  service  of  this  brigade 
was  with  the  great  armies,  and  its  righting  was  at  such 
places  as  Chickamauga,  the  Atlanta  campaign,  and  under 
General  Thomas  in  the  campaign  which  wound  up  with 
the  battle  of  Nashville.  After  that  it  took  part  in 
General  Wilson's  celebrated  expedition  through  Alabama 
and  Georgia.  The  names  of  the  places  visited  by  this 
brigade  of  cavalry  all  have  a  warlike  sound :  Murfrees- 
boro,  Triune,  Fayettesville,  Wartrace,  Tupelo,  Tul- 
lahoma,  Huntsville,  Caperton's  Ferry,  Valley  Head, 
Crawfish  Springs,  Rossville,  Lookout  Mountain,  Kings, 
ton,  Adairsville,  Etowah,  Kennesaw,  Sandtown,  Atlanta, 
Nashville,  Montgomery,  Macon. 

The  service  mentioned  of  these  regiments  was  but  a 
section  of  the  whole.  They  had  begun  their  career  in 
Kentucky,  attended  the  armies  to  Shiloh,  followed  them 
on  the  grand  round  through  Tennessee  and  back  to  Ken 
tucky,  on  the  march  to  Louisville,  out  to  Perry ville,  and 
thence  back  to  Tennessee.  In  all  this,  the  work  of  the 
cavalry  was  peculiarly  arduous.  It  operated  under  the 
orders  of  the  commander-in-chief.  It  had  no  independ 
ent  action,  no  place  "to  reason  why,"  but  only  to  per- 


The  Soldiers  303 

form  the  duty  assigned,  protecting  the  flanks  of  the 
army,  scouting,  reconnoitring,  guarding,  fighting  back 
advances,  pursuing,  skirmishing,  and  in  all  respects 
engaging  in  the  work  required  of  cavalry  in  connection 
with  large  forces  of  infantry. 

The  2d,  3d,  and  5th  regiments  of  Kentucky  cavalry, 
with  the  gth  Pennsylvania  and  8th  Indiana,  constituted  a 
brigade  for  a  time  commanded  by  Eli  H.  Murray,  Colo 
nel  of  the  3d  Kentucky.  A  notable  part  of  the  service 
of  these  regiments  was  in  the  march  from  Atlanta  to  the 
sea  and  thence  through  the  Carolinas.  The  obstacles  to 
Sherman's  march  were  in  large  degree  met  by  the 
cavalry,  and  the  report  of  the  young  commander  of  this 
brigade  discloses  fighting  all  the  way — at  Jonesboro, 
Lovejoy's,  Jackson,  Ocmulgee,  Macon,  Milledgeville, 
Ogeechee,  Waynesboro,  Augusta,  Sister's  Ferry,  Averys- 
boro,  Bentonville,  and  other  places. 

This  also  was  but  a  section  of  the  service  of  these 
regiments.  They,  too,  had  been  with  the  large  armies 
from  the  beginning.  The  Second  Cavalry  from  first  to  last 
was  in  fifty-six  engagements,  among  them  Perryville,  Mur- 
freesboro,  Chickamauga,  Dalton,  Kennesaw.  Twice  in 
the  Atlanta  campaign  it  went  with  other  cavalry  entirely 
around  the  Confederate  army,  breaking  communications 
and  destroying  supplies.  In  these  expeditions  it  was  led 
by  Colonel  Elijah  S.  Watts,  a  gallant  soldier,  educated 
at  West  Point,  and  who  served  continuously  with  the 
regiment  from  first  to  last. 

In  September,  1862,  two  brigades  of  cavalry  operated 
together  under  one  commander.  In  this  body  with  other 
regiments  were  the  1st,  3rd,  4th,  and  5th  Kentucky  regi 
ments.  They  were  on  the  alert  during  Buell's  march, 
contending  with  the  Confederate  cavalry.  They  captured 
a  Georgia  regiment  at  New  Haven,  Kentucky,  and  after 
the  battle  of  Perryville  were  again  in  Tennessee  with 
Rosecrans's  army  fighting  at  various  points  until  the 


304  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

battle  of  Murfreesboro,  where,  the  reports  say,  "Colonel 
Murray  with  a  handful  of  men  performed  service  that 
would  do  honor  to  a  full  regiment." 

In  1863  the  officers  in  command  in  Kentucky  peti 
tioned  General  Rosecrans  for  the  3d  Cavalry,  and  had  it 
for  a  time,  during  which  it  engaged  in  the  pursuit  of 
Morgan  through  Indiana  and  Ohio,  but  it  returned  again 
to  Tennessee,  and  in  connection  with  the  5th  and  7th 
Cavalry  served  so  satisfactorily  as  to  elicit  the  highest 
compliments  from  the  commanding  officers.  All  these 
regiments  continued  to  serve  with  the  armies  until  the 
opening  of  the  Atlanta  campaign.  During  this  campaign 
the  cavalry  had  no  rest.  Eight  Kentucky  cavalry  regi 
ments  participated:  the  1st,  2nd,  3rd,  4th,  5th,  6th, 
7th,  nth.  They  fought  from  Chattanooga  to  Atlanta. 
Toward  the  close  of  the  campaign  they  passed  twice 
around  the  rebel  army,  fighting  all  the  way  in  their  work 
of  breaking  communications.  The  reports  mention  fights 
at  Camp  Creek,  Stevens  Cross  Roads,  on  the  railroad  at 
Jonesboro,  on  the  McDonough  road,  Lovejoy's,  and 
Fosterville ;  at  the  latter  place  a  charge  was  made  called 
in  the  reports  "terrible  and  magnificent,  over  infantry 
and  artillery,  with  sabre  and  horse's  hoof."  On  the 
second  expedition,  which  lasted  ten  days,  Colonel 
Murray's  report  of  his  brigade  says  the  movement  was 
attended  with  daily  encounters.  "It  is  impossible,"  he 
says,  "for  any  one  not  a  participant  to  have  a  conception 
of  the  many  marches  made  and  successful  engagements." 

In  one  of  these  expeditions,  Colonel  Silas  Adams  of 
the  First  Kentucky  Cavalry,  commanding  his  brigade  and 
having  with  him  his  own  regiment  and  the  eleventh  Ken 
tucky  Cavalry,  Colonel  W.  O.  Boyle,  became  surrounded. 
He  refused  to  surrender,  and  his  commander,  General 
Stoneman,  told  him  if  he  tried  to  cut  his  way 
out  he  would  be  destroyed.  Adams  replied,  "  I 


The  Soldiers  305 

will  take  the  responsibility."  He  lost  some  men, 
but  extricated  his  command,  and  in  General  Sher 
man's  report  he  says  "Colonel  Adams's  brigade  came 
in  intact." 

Colonel  Charles  S.  Hanson,  in  the  report  of  his 
brigade,  which  assisted  in  driving  Morgan  out  of  Ken 
tucky,  in  June,  1864,  especially  commends  the  37th, 
39th,  4Oth,  and  $2nd  regiments  of  mounted  infantry 
in  the  battle  at  Cynthiana.  Of  the  pursuit  he  says: 
"The  march  of  four  hundred  and  seventy  miles 
from  Cynthiana  to  Cumberland  River  and  back  to 
Lexington  in  eleven  days  is  perhaps  the  most 
rapid  and  trying  known  in  this  war.  The  route  passed 
over  the  roughest  road  known  in  the  Kentucky 
mountains." 

Only  a  glimpse  here  can  be  given  of  the  service  of 
these  regiments,  but  it  is  enough  to  show  that  the 
high  encomiums  which  Shaler  passes  upon  the  re 
markable  dash  and  endurance  of  Morgan's  men  would 
be  just  as  properly  passed  upon  these  Union  regi 
ments. 

When  the  historian  says,  upon  the  whole,  the  Con 
federate  troops  from  Kentucky  were  better  than  the 
Union  Kentucky  troops,  he  in  effect  says  they  were  better 
than  any  Federal  soldiers  from  any  State,  for  it  would  be 
impossible  to  find  any  record  of  service  finer  than  that  of 
the  regiments  of  cavalry  just  mentioned,  and  a  few 
brief  suggestions  will  show  that  the  infantry  regi 
ments  from  Kentucky  had  as  splendid  a  record  as  the 
cavalry. 

The  following  interesting  table,  compiled  from  the 
report  of  the  Adjutant-General  of  Kentucky,  shows  the 
strength  of  the  cavalry  and  infantry  regiments,  and 
gives  an  idea  of  what  they  were  numerically,  not 
being  regiments  in  name  alone,  but  all  were  full : 


20 


3°6 


Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 


CAVALRY. 

REGIMENTS. 

NO.  AT 

ORGANIZATION. 

RECR 

ist  

,  900 

513 

2nd  

997 

3rd  

1  200 

4th  

659 

167 

5th  

789 

90 

6th  

1007 

343 

7th  

939 

203 

8th  

1235 

53 

9th  

1206 

52 

loth  

1176 

59 

nth  

IOO1 

279 

i2th  

814 

876 

i3th  

1198 

43 

i4th  

1273 

23 

i5th  , 

5«>3 

126 

i7th  

I2II 

55 

ist  Vet.  Cav  

267 

2nd  "        u    .... 

659 

3rd    "        "    

603 

4th    "        "    

594 

6th    "        "    

832 

Patterson's  Co.  Engineers..         43 
Light  Artillery 629 

Detachments  unclassified ..       107 


REGIMENTS. 


INFANTRY. 

No.  AT 
ORGANIZATION. 


TOTAL. 

1413 
997 

1200 
826 
879 

135° 
1142 
1288 
1258 

1235 
1280 
1690 
1241 
1296 

631 

1266 

267 

659 
603 

594 
832 

43 
1285 

107 
23,382 


RECRUITS.   TOTAL. 


656 


ist 

2nd 

3rd 

4th 

5th 


896 
876 

913 
803 
980 


209 
282 
163 


70 


1105 
1158 
1076 
1858 
1050 


The  Soldiers  307 


RECRUITS.  TOTAL. 

85  975 

169  1169 

103  1033 

205  1135 

100  969 

128  979 

112  994 

120  982 

462  J325 

99  969 

J7  895 

807  1499 

150  929 

127  962 

118  991 

65  939 

108  1013 

76  1018 

400  1064 

641  1160 

199  826 

165  842 

56  882 
923 

IO2  894 

121  962 
71  876 

541  1358 

195  1036 

126  1000 

177  946 

18  842 

321  946 

46  889 

140  1058 

854 


NO.  AT 

iGIMENTS. 

ORGANIZATION. 

6th  

890 

7th  

1000 

8th  

93° 

9th  

930 

loth  

869 

nth  

851 

I2th  

882 

I3th  

862 

i4th  

863 

i5th  

870 

i6th  

878 

1  7th  

692 

l8th  

779 

I9th  

835 

20th  

873 

2ISt  , 

874 

22nd  

905 

23rd  

942 

24th  

664 

26th  

519 

27th  

627 

28th  

677 

3oth  

826 

32nd  

923 

34th  

792 

35th  

841 

37th  

805 

39th  

817 

40th  

841 

45th  

874 

47th  

769 

48th  

864 

49th  

625 

52nd  

843 

53rd  

918 

54th  

854 

308  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

REGIMENTS.                                  ORGANIZATION.  REC*UITS.  TOTAL. 

55th 873  169  1042 

7th  Vet.  Inf 379                 ..  379 

i2th  "       " 639                 ..  639 

i4th  "       " 369                 13  382 

i6th  "       " 763                 -•  763 

1 8th  "       " 646                 ..  646 

2ist  "       " 866                 ..  866 

23rd  "       " 625                  ..  625 

26th  "       " 736                 ..  736 

28th  "       " 394                 . .  394 

48,893 

Total  Infantry 48,893 

Total  Cavalry 23,382 

72,275 
State  Troops 12,486 

84,761 
Deduct  veterans  re-enlisting 5,4^7 

79,354 

Thirty-five  of  the  foregoing  regiments  were  recruited 
in  the  summer  and  fall  of  1861,  and  the  number  of  men 
they  contained,  when  added  to  the  State  troops  organ 
ized  at  the  same  time,  exceeded,  as  has  been  already 
stated,  the  whole  number  of  Confederate  soldiers  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end. 

Many  of  these  earliest-raised  infantry  regiments  saw 
service  before  they  were  mustered  in.  In  July,  1861, 
the  1st  and  2nd  Infantry  were  fighting  in  West  Virginia, 
at  Gauley  Bridge,  Beverly,  Barbourville,  Red  House, 
Cotton  Hill,  and  other  places.  In  January,  1862,  they 
joined  Buell's  army  and  fought  at  Shiloh.  From  that 
time  on,  they  followed  the  fortunes  of  the  army  of  the 
Cumberland.  The  i/th  and  2/th  were  at  Donelson  and 


The  Soldiers  309 

Shiloh,  and  continued  with  the  army  of  the  Cumberland. 
The  4th,  loth,  and  I2th  Infantry  began  fighting  at  Mill 
Springs,  and  were  in  all  the  campaigns  and  battles  until 
the  close  of  the  war.  All  the  earlier-raised  infantry  regi 
ments  were  employed  from  the  first  in  contending  with 
the  Confederates  who  came  into  Kentucky  in  September, 
1861,  and  served  at  the  front  continuously.  It  would  be 
impossible  in  this  place  to  mention  the  special  services  of 
each  one.  No  one  can  be  said  to  have  been  better  than 
any  other.  They  were  all  alike  in  respect  to  efficiency 
and  soldierly  qualities.  They  took  part  in  the  great 
battles  of  Shiloh^  Perryville,  Stone  River,  Chickamauga, 
Mission  Ridge,  Resaca,  Buzzard  Roost,  Ringgold,  New 
Hope,  Golgotha,  Dallas,  Kenesaw,  Peachtree  Creek, 
Atlanta,  Utoy,  Jonesboro,  Franklin,  Nashville,  besides 
innumerable  engagements  of  lesser  note. 

In  the  battle  of  Shiloh  and  the  march  to  Corinth  the 
following  Kentucky  infantry  regiments  participated:  1st, 
2nd,  3rd,  4th,  5th,  6th,  Qth,  loth,  nth,  i2th,  isth,  i/th, 
20th,  24th,  2$th,  26th. 

If  we  desire  to  contemplate  a  body  of  troops  not  to  be 
surpassed  for  discipline,  courage,  and  endurance,  thought 
may  turn  to  the  notable  contingent  which  marched  with 
General  Buell  over  hot  and  dusty  roads,  in  a  season  of 
scarcity  of  water,  from  the  southern  line  of  Tennessee  to 
Louisville.  Though  placed  in  different  commands,  there 
were  in  that  celebrated  march  the  1st,  2nd,  3rd,  4th,  and 
5th  Cavalry ;  the  1st,  2nd,  3rd,  4th,  5th,  6th,  Qth,  loth, 
nth,  I2th,  I3th,  I5th,  i/th,  2oth,  2ist,  23rd,  24th,  26th, 
2/th  Infantry.  The  foregoing  table  will  show  that  all 
were  full  regiments.  If  the  officers  alone  could  be 
named,  the  list  would  comprise  more  than  five  hundred. 
At  the  same  time,  fifteen  other  Kentucky  regiments 
were  in  other  fields.  The  general  officers  and  officers 
commanding  brigades  on  the  great  march  were  Thomas 
L.  Crittenden,  Thomas  J.  Wood,  Lovell  H.  Rousseau, 


310  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Speed  Smith  Fry,  S.  G.  Burbridge,  John  M.  Harlan, 
Green  Clay  Smith,  John  T.  Croxton,  Walter  C. 
Whitaker,  P.  B.  Hawkins,  W.  A.  Hoskins,  E.  H. 
Hobson. 

In  the  battle  of  Perryville,  the  i$th  Infantry  lost  its 
Colonel,  Curran  Pope,  Lieutenant-Colonel  George  P. 
Jouett,  and  Major  William  P.  Campbell.  Two  lieu 
tenants  and  sixty-three  men  were  killed  and  two  hundred 
wounded.  Although  so  shattered,  General  Rousseau  says 
in  his  report:  ''On  approaching  the  I5th  Kentucky 
(though  broken  and  shattered)  it  rose  to  its  feet  and 
cheered,  and  as  one  man  moved  to  the  top  of  the  hill 
where  it  could  see  the  enemy  and  I  ordered  it  to  lie 
down."  The  brigade  commander  especially  commended 
the  regiment.  When  it  was  under  the  terrible  fire  which 
caused  so  much  loss  it  is  said  Captain  James  B.  Forman 
"seized  the  colors,  and,  mounting  the  remains  of  a  rail 
fence,  cheered  the  men  to  continued  resistance." 

He  was  made  Colonel  of  the  i$th  and  was  killed  in  the 
battle  of  Stone  River,  less  than  three  months  after 
Perryville. 

In  the  battle  of  Stone  River  the  ist,  2nd,  3rd,  5th, 
6th,  8th,  Qth,  nth,  I5th,  2ist,and  23rd  were  engaged,  and 
all  of  them  were  commended  for  their  steadiness,  cool 
ness,  and  bravery.  Many  of  them  lost  heavily  in  killed 
and  wounded,  both  of  officers  and  men.  In  the  nth, 
seven  were  killed  and  eighty-five  wounded,  including  four 
officers.  The  others  suffered  in  like  proportion. 

In  this  battle,  the  nth  captured  four  pieces  of  the 
celebrated  Washington  artillery.  After  the  battle 
General  Rosecrans,  by  special  order,  sent  "two  fighting 
regiments" — the  Qth  and  nth — back  to  Kentucky,  "to 
replenish  their  thinned  ranks." 

The  /th,  I9th,  and  22nd  were  with  General  George  W. 
Morgan  at  Cumberland  Gap  in  1862,  and  with  Sherman 
and  Grant  at  Vicksburg  in  1863,  and  were  especially  com- 


The  Soldiers  311 

mended  in  the  reports  for  gallantry  and  unflinching 
steadiness  in  the  battles  of  Thompson  Hill,  Champion 
Hill,  Big  Black,  and  before  Vicksburg. 

In  the  battle  of  Chickamauga  fifteen  Kentucky  infantry 
regiments  were  engaged,  the  1st,  2nd,  3rd,  4th,  5th,  6th, 
8th,  9th,  loth,  1 5th,  i/th,  i8th,  2ist,  23rd,  28th.  Nearly 
all  were  under  General  Thomas  and  contributed  power 
fully  to  the  holding  of  the  "key  point." 

All  the  regiments  which  fought  at  Chickamauga 
suffered  heavily,  but  soon  after  took  part  in  the  storming 
of  Lookout  Mountain  and  Mission  Ridge.  Then  many 
of  them  were  called  upon  to  take  up  the  long,  hard 
march  for  Knoxville.  There  ten  Kentucky  regiments — 
the  ist,  nth,  and  I2th  Cavalry  and  the  nth,  I2th, 
1 3th,  i6th,  24th,  2/th  Infantry — helped  to  make  up 
Burnside's  force,  which,  after  severe  fighting  in  the  field, 
were  beleaguered  in  the  city.  The  siege  was  raised  as 
succor  approached. 

The  3rd,  4th,  5th,  6th,  8th,  Qth,  loth,  I5th,  i;th,  i8th, 
23rd  climbed  Mission  Ridge  in  that  celebrated  charge. 
General  Hooker  says  in  his  report  of  the  battle  of 
Lookout  Mountain: 

"Several  regiments  were  detailed  to  scale  the  summit,  but  to 
the  8th  Kentucky  must  belong  the  distinction  of  having  been 
foremost  to  reach  its  crest,  and  at  sunrise  to  display  our  flag 
from  the  peak  of  Lookout  amid  the  wild  and  prolonged  cheers 
of  the  men  whose  dauntless  valor  had  borne  them  to  that 
point." 

The  loth  Infantry,  having  begun  service  in  the  fall  of 
1861,  and  fighting  at  Mill  Springs,  and  in  all  succeeding 
campaigns,  was  not  mustered  out  finally  until  June,  1865. 

General  Jeff.  C.  Davis  said  of  the  2ist: 

"This  regiment  served  under  my  command  during  the 
battle  of  Mission  Ridge,  and  in  the  subsequent  pursuit  of  the 
enemy  to  Ringgold.  At  Chickamauga  Station  its  gallantry  was 


312  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

so  conspicuous  as  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  whole 
division.  It  also  accompanied  me  to  Knoxville  and  back. 
The  hardships  endured  by  the  troops  in  the  march  called  for 
the  highest  qualities  of  the  soldier." 

The  23rd  participated  with  the  picked  men  in  the  taking 
of  Brown's  Ferry  to  open  the  " Cracker  line"  at 
Chattanooga,  October,  1863. 

In  the  East  Tennessee  campaign,  when  Longstreet 
was  moving  off  toward  Virginia,  a  battle  occurred  at 
Beans  Station,  when  the  2/th  Kentucky  held  its  position 
at  a  brick  house  until  both  wings  of  the  Confederate  line 
surged  past,  but  this  central  and  critical  point  was  held 
by  this  regiment  under  Colonel  John  H.  Ward  until  dark 
ness  enabled  him  to  retire — a  service  for  which  he  re 
ceived  the  most  complimentary  mention. 

In  the  Atlanta  campaign,  the  ist,  2nd,  3rd,  4th,  5th,  6th, 
8th,  Qth,  loth,  nth,  I2th,  I3th,  I4th,  i$th,  i6th,  i8th, 
20th,  2 ist,  23rd,  24th,  2/th,  28th,  participated,  fighting  in 
the  almost  daily  encounters,  and  in  the  large  engage 
ments,  all  of  which  were  so  constant  as  to  cause  the 
campaign  to  be  called  "the  battle  of  May,  June,  July, 
and  August."  When  the  strength  of  these  regiments  as 
shown  by  the  foregoing  table  is  considered,  the  part  that 
was  taken  by  the  Union  troops  from  Kentucky  in  these 
great  campaigns  appears  in  its  true  magnitude. 

The  1 2th  and  24th  led  the  way  in  effecting  the  crossing 
of  the  Chattahoochie  July  9,  1864,  at  the  mouth  of  Soap 
Creek,  which  General  Sherman  called  "one  of  the 
brilliant  feats  in  the  annals  of  war." 

In  October,  1864,  an  unsuccessful  expedition  was 
made  from  Kentucky  against  the  salt  works  in  Virginia, 
and  again  in  November  and  December  following  another 
was  made  against  the  same  place,  which  was  successful. 
The  Kentucky  regiments  which  were  engaged  in  these 
two  expeditions  were  the  nth,  1 2th,  and  I3th  Cavalry, 


The  Soldiers  313 

and  the  26th,  soth,  35th,  3/th,  39th,  4Oth,  45th,  536, 
54th,  55th  Kentucky  Infantry,  the  infantry  being  all 
mounted.  The  accounts  show  that  on  these  expeditions 
there  was  hard  righting,  bitter  cold  weather,  and  great 
scarcity  of  provisions. 

The  28th  Infantry  was  in  General  Whittaker's  brigade, 
at  Spring  Hill,  Tennessee,  in  November,  1864,  which 
assisted  in  holding  the  turnpike  against  the  advance  of 
General  Hood.  Colonel  John  Rowan  Boone  was  com 
plimented  for  the  skill  with  which  he  fought  his  regi 
ment,  the  28th,  at  that  critical  point.  It  was  this 
particular  service  which  gave  General  Whittaker  the 
grounds  for  his  explanation  as  to  why  General  Hood  did 
not  "get  on  the  pike"  at  Spring  Hill  (a  great  question  in 
the  history  of  the  campaign).  He  said:  "The  reason  he 
didn't  get  there  was  because  he  could  n't."  I  was  there 
myself,  and  had  Rowan  Boone  with  me!  " 

The  26th,  having  begun  its  career  in  Kentucky  in  the 
fall  of  1861,  was  in  service  until  July,  1865.  On  the  22nd 
day  of  February,  1865,  it  was  the  first  regiment  to  enter 
the  city  of  Wilmington,  N.  C. 

Of  the  service  of  the  I2th  and  i6th  in  the  battle  of 
Franklin,  Tennessee,  November  30,  1864,  General 
Schofield  says  in  his  book  —  Forty-six  Years  in  the 
Army — that  when  he  saw  the  centre  of  his  line  begin  to 
waver,  "For  a  moment  my  heart  sank,  but  instantly 
Opdycke's  brigade  and  the  I2th  and  i6th  Kentucky 
sprang  forward."  He  further  says,  "It  would  hardly  be 
possible  to  frame  language  that  would  do  justice  to  the 
magnificent  conduct  of  Emerson  Opdycke's  brigade,  and 
Lawrence  H.  Rousseau's  I2th  Kentucky,  and  John  S. 
White's  i6th  Kentucky.  Their  action  was  beyond  all 
praise." 

But  space  does  not  admit  of  mentioning  more 
instances;  nor,  indeed,  of  giving  the  proper  details 
of  those  which  have  been  so  briefly  alluded  to, 


314  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

so  as  to  make  them  stand  out  as  strikingly  as  they 
deserve. 

Of  all  these  regiments  it  may  be  said  that  no  records 
show  any  reprehensible  conduct.  On  the  contrary,  all 
are  marked  by  soldierly  qualities  in  as  high  a  degree  as 
any  in  the  service.  As  an  original  proposition,  it  would 
be  needless  to  say  so  much,  but  as  the  point  has  been 
raised,  and  as  an  accredited  historian  has  deliberately 
written  to  the  disparagement  of  the  Kentucky  Unionists 
who  took  up  arms  in  obedience  to  their  State  and 
government,  it  is  due  them  to  point  to  the  records  of 
the  period  for  their  vindication.  In  Collins's  Annals 
the  work  of  a  Southern  sympathizer,  and  in  the  reports 
of  Confederate  officers  themselves,  it  was  shown  that 
much  that  was  reprehensible  attended  the  movements  in 
Kentucky  of  the  Confederate  troops,  so  highly  extolled 
by  the  historian  Shaler,  while  no  blemish  appears  upon  the 
escutcheon  of  any  Union  regiment  from  Kentucky,  (i. 
Collins,  134,135;  War  Records ',  Serial  No.  77,  pp.  74-84.) 

Nor  are  there  any  grounds  for  saying  any  troops  were 
better  than  the  Kentucky  Union  regiments.  To  say 
that  the  Confederate  troops  from  Kentucky  were  a  finer 
body  of  men  than  the  Union  troops  from  Kentucky  is 
equivalent  to  saying  they  were  finer  than  any  and  all 
others,  for  the  records  of  the  service  of  the  Union  regi 
ments  from  Kentucky  are  as  high  and  excellent  as  those 
from  any  other  State  on  either  side  in  the  war.  Nor  is 
there  any  logic  or  consistency  in  the  statement  of  the 
historian.  It  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  Con 
federates  went  from  the  richer  parts  of  the  State,  which 
was  not  true,  nor  would  it  signify  anything  if  true.  It  is 
shown  by  Colonel  Ed.  Porter  Thompson  that  the  First 
Kentucky  Confederate  brigade,  which  the  historian  cites 
in  proof  of  his  statement,  did  not  come  from  any 
particular  part  of  the  State,  but  from  all  parts.  The  same 
is  true  of  John  H.  Morgan's  men.  One  of  his  regiments 


The  Soldiers  315 

came  from  the  western  part  of  the  State,  and  his  men 
generally  were  from  many  sections  besides  the  Blue 
Grass.  Indeed,  when  Morgan  first  raided  Kentucky,  in 
1862,  he  says  in  his  own  report  that  his  command  con 
sisted  of  his  own  regiment,  which  we  may  presume  were 
Kentuckians,  and  the  "Georgia  regiment  of  partisan 
rangers,  commanded  by  Colonel  A.  A.  Hunt,  and  Major 
Gano's  Texas  Squadron,  to  which  were  attached  two 
companies  of  Tennessee  cavalry." 

If  it  were  true  that  the  Blue  Grass  section  of  Kentucky 
furnished  the  best  soldiers,  it  is  also  true  that  that 
section  furnished  more  Union  soldiers  than  Confederate 
soldiers,  precisely  as  it  furnished  more  Union  voters  than 
Southern  Rights  voters. 

The  whole  idea  of  such  distinction  is  fallacious,  and  the 
historian's  conception  of  forty  thousand  Confederates 
going  off  to  the  Confederacy  in  September,  1861,  giving 
rise  to  the  fancy  that  all  the  fighting  material  departed, 
leaving  a  less  martial  people  to  furnish  Union  soldiers, 
is  nothing  but  a  dream.  The  truth  is,  less  than  a  fourth 
of  forty  thousand  departed  at  that  time.  The  State 
Guard  did  not  go  as  a  whole,  and  at  that  time  not  less 
than  forty  thousand  did  join  the  Union  army,  if  we 
include  the  Home  Guard  companies.  Shaler's  idea  of 
the  "first  running  from  the  press"  is  also  only  fancy, 
under  the  facts  as  above  stated. 

Concerning  the  whole  spirit  manifested  in  Shaler's 
history,  it  will  be  understood  by  many  readers  when  they 
find  in  it  the  expression  that  the  Kentucky  troops  were 
' '  in  no  part  composed  of  substitutes,  which  formed  so  large 
a  part  of  the  forces  from  most  of  the  Northern  States. ' ' 
(P.  357.)  A  writer  who  is  disposed  to  cast  such  a  slur 
upon  the  great  body  of  volunteers  who  saved  the  Union 
from  destruction  finds  it  easy  to  do  injustice  to  those 
from  the  State  of  Kentucky. 


CHAPTER  XX 

STATE  TROOPS,  OR   HOME   GUARDS 

A  NOTHER  branch  of  the  service  must  be  mentioned, 
/HL  which  was  peculiarly  important  in  Kentucky  as  a 
border  State.  A  large  part  of  her  military  material  was 
organized  in  companies  generally  designated  as  Home 
Guards,  but  more  correctly  called  State  Troops  or  State 
Militia.  The  Legislature  having  provided  for  this  organi 
zation  by  act  of  May,  1861,  many  companies  were  at 
once  formed,  and  upon  them  at  the  first  beginning  of 
strife  was  dependent  to  a  considerable  extent  the  defence 
of  the  State.  They  unquestionably  prevented  the 
occupation  of  Louisville  by  the  Confederates  in  Septem 
ber,  1861,  and  from  that  time  until  the  close  of  the  war 
they  played  an  important  part  in  the  protection  of 
Kentucky  from  injury  by  raiders  of  every  description. 

Almost  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  war  until  the 
end,  and  even  afterwards,  Kentucky  was  infested  with 
roving  bands  of  Confederates  which  are  described  in  the 
chapter  entitled  The  Guerrilla  Evil. 

Mr.  Davis  says  in  his  History  : 

"I  was  authorized  to  commission  officers  to  form  bands 
of  partisan  rangers  either  of  infantry  or  cavalry,  which 
were  subsequently  confined  to  cavalry  alone."  (Vol.  i., 
p.  514.) 

These  bands  came  into  Kentucky  in  large  numbers,  and 
many  were  formed  in  the  State.  It  is  only  necessary  to 
recur  to  Collins's  Annals  to  see  how  numerous  they  were, 

316 


State  Troops,  or  Home  Guards       zi7 

and  the  mischief  that  was  done  by  them.  Of  date 
December  8,  1863,  is  the  following  entry: 

"Guerrillas  swarming  in  western  Kentucky." 

Again,  November  30,  1864: 

"Guerrillas  and  Confederate  recruits  very  active  in 
middle  and  western  Kentucky." 

Again,  July  5,  1864: 

1 '  President  Lincoln,  alarmed  at  the  prevalence  of  Con 
federate  and  guerrilla  raiders  in  Kentucky,  suspends  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  proclaims  martial  law  in  the 
State." 

Again,  October  9,  1863: 

"Guerrilla  outrages  and  successes  in  eastern  Kentucky 
increasing.  Governor  Bramlette  issues  a  pronunciamento, 
saying  the  State  shall  be  free  from  its  murderous  foes 
even  though  every  arm  be  required  to  aid  in  their 
destruction.  He  threatens  a  draft  unless  State  Guard 
companies  for  home  protection  are  formed  immediately." 

In  these  annals  are  mentioned  in  great  number  the 
outrages  perpetrated  by  the  bands  for  whose  destruction 
Governor  Bramlette  called  for  the  formation  of  more 
State  Guards. 

To  protect  the  State  against  these  bands  more  than 
twelve  thousand  men  were  enrolled  under  the  heads 
"State  Troops  Proper,"  and  "State  Militia  Proper."  In 
the  report  of  General  D.  W.  Lindsay,  Adjutant-General, 
are  found  the  names  of  all  these  men  and  their  officers. 
Under  the  first  head  there  were  twelve  battalions,  as 
follows : 

Frankfort  Battalion,  seven  companies. 
Paducah  Battalion,  five  companies. 
Sandy  Valley  Battalion,  four  companies. 
North  Cumberland  Battalion,  three  companies. 
Three  Forks  Battalion,  seven  companies. 
Hall's  Gap  Battalion,  four  companies. 


3*3  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Mercer  County  State  Guards,  one  company. 
Green  River  Battalion,  four  companies. 
Middle  Green  River  Battalion,  four  companies. 
South  Cumberland  Battalion,  five  companies. 
First  Kentucky  State  Cavalry,  four  companies. 
Casey  County  State  Guards,  one  company. 

These  battalions  consisted  of  forty-nine  companies. 

Under  the  second  head  there  were  sixty-two  com 
panies,  and  all  came  under  the  designation  of  Kentucky 
State  forces. 

Commenting  upon  these  troops,  the  Adjutant-General 
says: 

"All  of  these  troops  did  valuaole  and  efficient  service  for 
the  State  and  the  General  government,  as  the  history  of  the 
time  would  fully  show.  The  Sandy  Valley  Battalion  rendered 
very  important  service  during  the  Saltville  raid.  The  Frank 
fort  Battalion  protected  the  capital  from  the  frequent 
incursions  of  guerrilla  forces.  The  Paducah  battalion  pro 
tected  the  southwestern  portion  of  the  State.  Shortly  after 
the  mustering  out  of  this  battalion  the  gallant  captain  Thomas 
J.  Gregory,  Company  A,  was  killed  in  action  while  leading  a 
charge  against  a  guerrilla  force.  The  Three  Forks  battalion 
was  located  in  the  extreme  southeastern  portion  of  the  State ; 
the  Hall's  Gap  battalion  in  the  locality  between  Stanford  and 
Hall's  Gap;  the  Green  River  battalion  in  the  counties  between 
the  Ohio  and  Green  rivers;  the  Middle  Green  River  in  the 
southern  portion  of  the  State;  the  South  Cumberland 
battalion,  also,  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State;  the  First 
Kentucky  State  Cavalry  in  the  central  part  of  the  State;  the 
Frankfort  battalion  was  assigned  to  duty  in  guarding  the 
Louisville  and  Lexington  Railroad  and  the  country  adjacent 
thereto.  All  of  these  battalions  performed  the  most  valuable 
service  against  the  rebels  and  guerrillas  under  Morgan,  John 
son,  South,  Lyon,  Mundy,  Gentry,  Jesse,  etc.,  and  for  some 
time  freed  the  State  from  the  incursions  of  these  troops,  the 
acts  of  many  of  whom  were  barbarous  in  the  extreme." 


State  Troops,  or  Home  Guards       319 

Some  of  the  instances  in  which  State  troops  were 
engaged  are  noted  in  Collins 's  Annals.  These  are  here 
given  not  with  the  view  of  showing  anything  like  the 
extent  of  their  services,  but  to  show  that  Collins,  in 
gathering  the  important  events  of  the  war,  found  that  the 
work  of  the  Home  Guards  called  for  his  attention. 

In  August,  1862,  two  fights  with  guerrillas  by  Home 
Guards  in  Pike  County. 

August  i6th,  near  Mammoth  Cave,  Home  Guards 
defeat  a  Confederate  company,  taking  77  prisoners. 

August  25th,  Home  Guards  from  Danville  ancj 
Harrodsburg  surprise  and  defeat  guerrillas. 

September  i8th,  Home  Guards  fight  successfully  at 
Falmouth  with  Texas  Rangers. 

September  28th,  fight  at  Brooksville. 

May  8,  1863,  Colonel  W.  H.  Wadsworth  captured 
Confederate  recruits  near  Maysville. 

June  i6th,  Home  Guards  attack  Confederates  unsuc 
cessfully  in  Fleming  County. 

September  2d,  fight  near  Cattlettsburg. 

June  loth,  Confederate  raiders  attack  Frankfort,  and 
are  beaten  off  by  State  troops. 

December  13,  1864,  Home  Guards  defeat  Confederates 
near  Newcastle. 

June  29,  1865,  Home  Guards  defeat  Confederates  near 
Harrodsburg. 

February  2Oth,  Home  Guards  defeat  Confederates  near 
Hartford. 

March  I5th,  fight  at  Pitt's  Point. 

March  29th,  fight  near  Paducah. 

Collins  gives  in  some  detail  the  remarkable  fight  of  125 
Home  Guards  under  Dr.  Bradford  with  300  of  Morgan's 
men  at  Augusta,  Kentucky,  in  which  the  latter  lost  21 
killed,  and  although  the  Home  Guards  were  compelled 
to  surrender,  by  firing  the  houses  from  which  they  fought, 
the  object  of  the  raid  was  frustrated.  Further  mention  of 


320  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

this  battle  is  found  in  the  official  records,  showing  that 
Colonel  Wilson  of  the  44th  Ohio  hurried  from  Maysville 
to  the  relief  of  Dr.  Bradford,  having  with  him  Colonel 
William  H.  Wadsworth,  Colonel  Charles  A.  Marshall, 
and  Judge  Bush,  who  led  the  Home  Guards.  "More 
than  half  of  my  command,"  says  Colonel  Wilson  in  his 
report,  "were  citizens,  but  all  marched  and  behaved  like 
veteran  troops."  Colonel  Wilson  says  in  his  report  that 
his  cavalry  rushed  into  the  town  in  time  to  release  some 
of  the  Home  Guards  whom  the  Confederates  "did  not 
have  time  to  parole." 

In  September,  1862,  Governor  Robinson  appointed 
William  H.  Wadsworth  to  command  the  State  forces  in 
the  section  of  the  State  about  Maysville,  and  he  ap 
pointed  on  his  staff  the  well-known  citizens  Thomas  M. 
Green,  Sam  W.  Owens,  and  Richard  Apperson,  Jr. 
(Collins,  i.,  p.  in.) 

In  September,  1863,  a  general  military  order  was  issued 
"encouraging  the  organization  of  Home  Guards  in  Ken 
tucky  to  put  down  robbery  and  violence."  They  were  to 
report  to  the  military  officers,  and  were  supplied  with 
arms.  (War  Records,  Serial  No.  52,  p.  620.)  The 
services  of  the  Home  Guards  are  favorably  mentioned 
in  the  official  reports  of  numerous  generals,  among  them 
Nelson,  Anderson,  Boyle,  H.  G.  Wright,  Green  Clay 
Smith,  George  W.  Morgan,  D.  W.  Lindsay,  E.  H. 
Hobson.  All  of  them  speak  of  these  troops  in  a  com 
plimentary  manner  and  in  no  other  way.  Only  once  does 
any  officer  find  cause  of  complaint,  and  in  that  instance 
General  Burbridge  issued  an  order  reciting  that  some 
Home  Guards  were  acting  badly  and  that  such  conduct 
would  not  be  permitted.  And  although  Collins,  in  glean 
ing  the  events  of  the  war,  so  often  mentioned  the  services 
of  the  Home  Guards,  in  only  one  instance  does  he  state 
that  they,  in  connection  with  regular  troops,  were 
blamable,  and  that  was  for  what  he  called  plundering. 


State  Troops,  or  Home  Guards       321 

It  will  readily  occur  to  any  reader  that  with  any  troops, 
however  well  controlled  and  disciplined,  when  in  the 
field  engaged  in  actual  war,  it  will  now  and  then,  and 
perhaps  frequently,  occur  that  bad  conduct  will  call  for 
reprimand.  Collins's  Annals  abound  in  mention  of 
plundering,  pillaging,  robbing  stores  and  banks  by  the 
acknowledged  Confederate  forces,  notably  those  under 
Morgan,  and  compared  with  this  the  conduct  of  the 
Home  Guards  generally  in  Kentucky  appears  blameless. 
They  were  operating  under  orders,  and  were  scattered  in 
all  parts  of  the  State  for  its  protection.  Twice  only  is 
anything  alleged  against  them,  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
those  against  whom  they  were  contending  were  per 
petrating  scores  upon  scores  of  outrages,  killings,  plun- 
derings,  pillagings,  burnings,  notably  of  court-houses,  and 
other  buildings  in  towns,  regardless  of  the  possibility  of 
the  fires  consuming  any  and  all  other  property.  Reference 
to  Collins's  Annals  will  abundantly  establish  this  state 
ment,  and  show  to  what  a  terrible  and  desperate  condition 
the  State  of  Kentucky  was  brought  by  the  bands  of  Con 
federates  which  swarmed  over  it,  and  against  whom  the 
Home  Guards,  conjointly  with  other  troops,  had  to 
wage  incessant  warfare. 

The  State  troops  never  left  the  State  except  in  very 
few  instances.  The  companies  were  formed  for  local 
defence.  They  were  alert  and  vigilant  and  exceedingly 
active.  As  the  Adjutant-General  says,  "for  some  time 
they  freed  the  State  from  incursions."  The  companies 
were  made  up  of  the  neighborhood  men  who  could  not 
well,  on  personal  account,  or  on  account  of  their  families, 
go  in  the  regular  regimental  organizations.  These  com 
panies  inspired  confidence  wherever  they  were.  Their 
object  was  to  defend  against  raiding,  and  their  presence 
gave  a  feeling  of  security  to  the  neighborhood. 

Nothing  can  be  more  unjust  than  the  unfounded 
censure  of  these  guardians  of  the  State  found  in  certain 

21 


322  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

historical  treatises.  For  instance,  Shaler  has  deliberately 
written  that  these  Kentucky  Unionists,  organized  under 
authority  for  the  protection  of  their  own  homes  and  com 
munities  and  State,  were  the  worst  enemies  the  State  had. 
He  calls  them  a  "medieval  type  of  soldiery,"  and  says  the 
local  disturbances  they  bred  were  of  more  permanent 
damage  to  the  State  than  all  the  larger  operations  of  war 
that  were  ever  carried  on  within  her  borders."  (P.  269.) 
The  injustice  of  this  is  shown  even  in  Shaler's  own 
history.  He  details  the  fight  of  the  Home  Guards  at 
Augusta  with  a  body  of  Morgan's  men,  and  says: 

"Though  outnumbered  four  to  one  by  their  veteran 
assailants,  they  fought  for  several  hours  from  house  to 
house,  killing  and  wounding  about  fifty  of  Duke's  men." 

Also,  that  Duke's  proposed  Confederate  expedition 
into  Ohio  failed,  and  that  the  Confederates  "returned 
with  one  more  experience  in  the  fighting  power  of  the 
citizen  Kentuckian." 

He  also  mentions  the  fight  of  the  Home  Guards  at 
Falmouth,  in  which  they  "defeated  their  assailants, 
inflicting  a  loss  of  six  men." 

"In  a  score  of  other  engagements,"  says  he,  "these  little 
detached  commands,  fighting  by  their  thresholds,  showed  their 
willingness  to  combat  against  hopeless  odds,  and  to  endure  a 
degree  of  punishment  which  it  is  hard  to  obtain  from  regular 
troops.  Though  often  overcome,  they  showed  the  Confed 
erate  troops  that  the  State  would  not  be  readily  subjugated,  and 
dissipated  all  the  fondly  cherished  ideas  that  Kentucky  was 
actually  in  sympathy  with  the  Confederacy."  (P.  317.) 

Thus  it  appears  that  as  he  records  the  facts  the  Home 
Guards  stand  well,  but  when  he  expresses  views  he  is 
moved  by  bias  to  put  the  seal  of  condemnation  upon 
them. 

But   the  most  inexcusable  incrimination  of  the  State 


State  Troops,  or  Home  Guards       323 

troops  is  found  in  Z.   F.  Smith's  History  of  Kentucky. 
Writing  of  them,  he  says : 

"These  were  a  local  sort  of  military  police,  organized 
and  armed  at  the  same  time  with  the  State  Guards,  but 
maintained  around  the  towns  and  neighborhood  centres. 
While  many  men  of  character  and  integrity  were  associated 
with  these,  and  rendered  good  service  in  restraining  violence, 
yet  they  offered  the  tempting  opportunity  of  gathering  into 
their  organizations  the  shiftless,  prowling,  and  lawless  element 
which  more  or  less  infests  every  community  at  the  expense  of 
its  peace  and  good  name.  The  usual  compensation,  the 
subordination  of  civil  authority  to  a  dispensation  of  military 
license,  and  the  free  and  easy  service  with  little  risk  or 
sacrifice,  made  for  them  a  long  holiday  of  each  year  of  their 
visitation  upon  the  country.  Too  frequently  for  the  honor 
and  good  repute  of  our  civilization,  officers  and  privates 
availed  themselves  of  the  armed  license  to  perpetrate  needless 
and  barbarous  murders,  to  spoliate  upon  and  appropriate  or 
destroy  property,  to  arrest  and  imprison  men,  and  to  injure, 
terrify,  and  annoy  with  ruthless  and  cruel  inhumanity." 

After  having  given  this  expression  of  partisan  feeling 
upon  the  page  designed  for  historic  narration,  and  well 
knowing  how  the  pages  of  Collins  teem  with  instances  of 
misconduct  on  the  part  of  Confederate  raiding  parties, 
he  undertakes  to  make  his  unfounded  aspersions  of  the 
Home  Guards  appear  impartial.  He  says: 

"These  phases  and  experiences  of  depravity  are  not 
phenomenal  with  Kentucky,  nor  were  they  a  peculiar  out 
growth  of  one  cause  militant  or  the  other.  We  shall  see  that 
from  the  ranks  of  the  splendid  manhood  of  the  Confederate 
army  there  came  out  to  prowl  and  prey  upon  communities,  in 
defiance  of  all  restraints  of  civilized  warfare,  marauding  bands 
of  outlaws,  who  perpetrated  murders,  robberies,  arsons,  and 
outrages,  and  under  the  abuse  of  Confederate  authority,  as 
wantonly  as  did  the  worst  element  of  the  other  side." 


324  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

It  may  be  set  down  as  incontestably  true  that  if  the 
Union  Home  Guards  of  Kentucky  had  even  approximated 
the  character  given  them  by  Shaler  and  Smith,  their 
character  would  have  been  made  known  by  deeds,  and  it 
is  equally  true  that  if  there  had  been  such  deeds  they 
would  have  been  chronicled  by  Collins.  That  they  are 
not  chronicled  by  Collins  is  proof  positive  that  they  did 
not  exist  and  never  occurred.  Collins  was  intense  in  his 
Southern  sympathy,  but  he  could  not  record  deeds  which 
never  occurred.  Therefore,  he  sets  down  nothing, 
practically  speaking,  against  the  Home  Guards,  while  the 
raiding  bands  against  whom  the  Home  Guards  operated 
are  shown  by  Collins  to  have  committed  deeds  of  villany 
by  scores  and  hundreds. 

Nor  do  the  official  records  contain  any  reports  which 
reflect  upon  the  conduct  of  these  Home  Guard  troops, 
while  they  abound  in  specific  mention  of  the  innumerable 
crimes  of  those  whom  these  State  troops  were  fighting. 
These  records  and  Collins's  Annals  may  not  be  searched 
by  general  readers,  but  general  historic  presentations  in 
the  form  of  Smith's  and  Shaler's  are  apt  to  be  consulted. 
It  is  shown  in  another  chapter  that  the  administration 
at  Washington  placed  Kentucky  officers  in  charge  in 
Kentucky,  as  a  general  rule,  on  the  supposition  that  they 
would  be  most  acceptable  to  the  people.  But,  whether 
they  were  Kentuckians  or  not,  there  was  continuous  com 
plaint  of  "high-handed  outrages."  Nor  was  this  unnat 
ural  at  the  time.  The  people  grew  weary  of  government 
by  soldiers.  Military  rule  is  far  from  as  agreeable  as 
the  civil.  Therefore,  complaints  against  the  military 
which  were  so  common  at  the  time  may  be  excused,  but 
it  is  not  excusable  to  transfer  them  to  the  historic  page 
to  make  appear  as  history  matters  which  were  complained 
of  under  such  circumstances. 

The  system  of  Provost  Marshals  belongs  to  a  condition 
of  war.     It  is  as  necessary  as  many  other  systems  in  such 


State  Troops,  or  Home  Guards       325 

time.  It  was  established  in  Kentucky  and  was  one  of 
the  unwelcome  features  of  war  time.  The  logic  of  the 
situation  was  simply  this:  War  has  its  necessary  con 
comitants,  and  the  only  way  to  avoid  them  is  to  avoid 
having  war.  That  the  Provost  Marshal  system  in  Ken 
tucky  was  especially  harmful  does  not  appear  in  any 
record.  Doubtless,  the  officers  were  complained  of  at  the 
time,  and  that  they  were  blameless  in  all  that  they  did 
no  one  would  allege.  But  if  they  had  been  the  agents 
of  a  ruthless  despotism,  their  track  would  have  been 
marked  by  deeds,  and  those  deeds  would  appear  in  the 
records.  Especially  would  Collins  have  gathered  them, 
and  noted  them  in  his  Annals.  That  they  do  not  appear 
in  this  manner  is  proof  that  they  did  not  occur,  and  the 
real  truth  is,  the  Provost  Marshal  system  in  Kentucky 
was  not  chargeable  with  any  special  wrong,  and  was  not 
an  agent  for  intolerable  tyranny.  Yet  the  historian 
Shaler  deliberately  states,  as  one  of  the  charges  against 
the  Unionists  of  Kentucky,  that : 

"There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  people  of  Kentucky 
endured  far  more  outrage  from  the  acts  of  the  Provost 
Marshals  than  they  did  from  all  the  acts  of  legitimate  war 
put  together."  (P.  353.) 

This  historian  may  not  have  regarded  any  feature  of  the 
war  as  "legitimate,"  but  it  brought  upon  the  soil  of  Ken 
tucky  vast  contending  armies;  it  caused  terrible  battles 
to  be  fought;  it  brought  raiding  troops,  which  were 
opposed  by  bodies  of  Federal  troops.  Both  careered 
over  the  State  incessantly.  All  this  was  war,  and  all  the 
evil  which  attends  war  inevitably  followed.  Yet  it  is 
gravely  narrated  for  history  that  the  Provost  Marshals, 
against  whom  the  records  are  practically  silent,  inflicted 
more  damage  than  the  contending  armies.  This  is  in 
keeping  with  the  statement  that  the  Home  Guards  were 
of  more  permanent  damage  to  the  State  than  all  the  large 
operations  of  war  put  together.  No  more  extravagant  or 


326  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

unjust  statements  could  be  made,  and  it  seems  to  spring 
from  a  desire  to  show  that  in  all  the  ramifications  of 
Federal  control  in  Kentucky  there  was  always  ground 
for  censure.  Shaler  often  recurs  to  the  subject  of  Provost 
Marshals.  He  calls  the  system  a  "brutal  tyranny,"  and 
speaks  of  the  protests  against  it  "from  all  good  citizens"  ; 
that  it  "disgusted  the  people"  and  that  many  Unionists 
were  "turned  into  rebels  by  the  outrages  of  the  military 
authorities"  in  this  connection. 

Having  classed  the  Home  Guards  with  guerrillas,  so 
he  also  classes  the  Provost  Marshals  and  guerrillas  to 
gether.  His  language  is  as  follows: 

"A  vast  number  of  bandit  gangs,  nominally  in  the  Con 
federate  army,  but  really  without  any  control  from  com- 
missoned  officers,  roamed  over  the  State  in  all  directions, 
robbing,  murdering,  and  burning  as  they  went.  It  seemed  for 
a  time  as  if  civil  government  would  be  broken  to  pieces  by 
these  two  mortal  foes  to  order — the  guerrillas  and  the  Provost 
Marshals."  (P.  351.) 

The  Provost  Marshals,  like  the  Home  Guards,  were 
Kentucky  Unionists.  They  were  striving  to  protect 
Kentucky  from  the  disastrous  consequences  of  border 
warfare,  which  had  brought  upon  the  State  a  condition 
so  desperate  that  Shaler  himself  says  it  "could  hardly  be 
described."  They  were  not  making  disorder.  If  dis 
order  had  not  come  from  other  sources  they  would  not 
have  been  called  into  service.  Yet  the  historian  classes 
the  defenders  of  order  with  those  who  had  brought  on  the 
troubles. 

But  the  extravagancies  of  Shaler  appear  in  many  ways. 
An  instance  will  be  given,  not  because  it  affects  Ken 
tucky  Unionists,  but  simply  to  show  the  extremes  to 
which  he  goes  in  dealing  with  events  where  there  are 
grounds  for  censuring  the  Federal  side.  He  gives  an 
account  of  General  E.  A.  Payne  and  his  associates,  who 


State  Troops,  or  Home  Guards       327 

were  in  charge  of  western  Kentucky  for  a  time.  He 
says,  "It  was  charged  that  they  had  been  guilty  of 
extreme  cruelty  and  extortion,"  and  their  conduct,  says 
he,  "had  not  had  its  parallel  since  the  tyrannies  of  the 
Austrian  Haynau." 

Now,  with  all  that  may  be  said  against  any  officer  on 
either  side  in  our  Civil  War,  it  may  be  set  down  to  the 
credit  of  the  American  people  that  an  Austrian  Haynau 
never  appeared  from  first  to  last.  Haynau,  in  dealing 
with  the  participants  in  the  Hungarian  revolt  of  1848,  is 
said  to  have  held  "bloody  assizes,"  and  among  his 
numerous  victims  were  titled  men  and  distinguished 
leaders  of  the  Hungarians.  Those  who  were  fortunate  to 
escape  death  at  his  hands  found  refuge  in  other  countries, 
and  among  them  Kossuth  came  to  the  United  States. 
No  such  conduct  occurred  anywhere  in  our  Civil  War. 
The  comparison  is  simply  hyperbole,  and  may  be  classed 
with  the  same  writer's  placing  the  Union  Home  Guards 
of  Kentucky  and  the  Provost  Guards  on  the  same  plane 
with  guerrillas. 

Another  specimen  of  unjust  and  uncalled-for  writing  by 
this  same  historian  is  his  characterization  of  Colonel  Frank 
Wolford  and  his  regiment.  The  language  used  is  as 
follows:  "Colonel  Wolford,  a  partisan  commander,  who 
had  done  excellent  service  with  his  regiment  of  irregular 
cavalry. ' ' 

Wolford's  regiment  was  the  First  Kentucky  Cavalry. 
It  was  recruited  in  August,  1861,  at  Camp  Dick  Rob 
inson.  In  that  month  it  guarded  the  train  which  car 
ried  arms  from  Lexington  to  Camp  Dick  Robinson. 
It  fought  at  Camp  Wildcat  in  October;  in  January,  1862, 
at  Mill  Springs.  From  that  time  on  it  was  on  incessant 
duty,  fighting  at  innumerable  places  against  raiders  in 
Kentucky;  operating  with  Buell'sand  Rosecrans'  armies; 
with  Burnside  in  east  Tennessee;  with  Sherman  in  the 
Atlanta  campaign.  Why  Colonel  Wolford  should  be 


328  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

called  a  partisan,  or  his  regiment  irregular,  does  not  ap 
pear  from  any  record  or  authentic  mention. 

These  instances  are  given  to  show  that  the  spirit  of  a 
historian  may  be  such  that  his  statements  are  to  be  taken 
with  caution.  In  a  certain  sense  it  would  be  history  to 
record  precisely  what  was  the  temper  of  a  people,  and 
how  they  manifested  it,  through  a  period  of  conflict.  It 
could  be  truthfully  said  that  severe  and  bitter  things  were 
uttered  in  Kentucky  during  the  war  time.  Aspersions 
and  criminations  were  dealt  out  with  a  free  hand  ;  all  this 
is  true.  But  to  record  upon  the  historic  page  those  free- 
spoken  charges  and  criminations  of  the  day  as  embodying 
the  truth,  as  to  men  and  events,  is  unjust  to  the  actors 
of  that  period.  The  records  all  show  that  a  desperate 
condition  of  affairs  existed  in  Kentucky.  In  the  contest, 
which  lasted  through  months  and  years,  several  remedies 
were  resorted  to,  but  the  Kentucky  Unionists  were  resist 
ing  those  who  were  fighting  against  the  stand  the  people 
of  the  State  chose  to  take  on  the  side  of  the  Union. 
They  were  contending  for  the  peace  and  security  of  their 
homes  and  firesides.  The  Union  Kentucky  soldiers  in 
organized  regiments  at  the  front  were  fighting  for  the 
preservation  of  the  Union.  The  organizations  in  the 
State  were  engaged  in  suppressing  a  local  warfare  which 
was  precipitated  upon  the  State  as  one  of  the  unfortunate 
incidents  of  a  state  of  war.  In  no  form  of  organization 
did  the  Kentucky  Unionists  seek  to  devastate  their  own 
State,  nor  did  they  roam  in  partisan  bands  into  any  other 
State. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

THE  NUMBER   ENGAGED 

DURING  the  entire  war  Kentucky  was  subjected  to 
incessant  raiding,  and  the  protection  of  the  State 
was  largely  entrusted  to  Kentucky  troops.  Regiments  of 
cavalry  and  mounted  infantry  were  especially  employed, 
and  they  had  a  toilsome  and  difficult  service.  The 
raiders  were,  in  large  measure,  Kentuckians,  and  with 
every  command  coming  into  the  State  were  men  who 
knew  the  country  and  could  serve  as  guides.  Besides 
this,  the  State  was  full  of  men  who  sympathized  with  the 
Confederate  cause,  who  could  always  be  depended  on  to 
give  information.  On  this  account  raiding  was  made 
the  more  easy,  and  the  difficulties  of  defending  were 
increased.  Concentration  of  Union  troops  would  be  made 
where  it  was  thought  the  raiders  might  be  met,  but 
information  given  would  lead  to  movements  elsewhere. 
This  is  so  natural  it  only  needs  to  be  thus  briefly  men 
tioned,  but  it  is  necessary  to  understand  it  in  order  to 
avoid  falling  into  the  common  error  that  whenever  the 
raiders  were  worsted  it  was  by  superior  forces. 

One  of  the  gross  misunderstandings  of  the  situation, 
not  only  in  Kentucky  but  everywhere,  is  that  Confede 
rate  defeats  were  always  owing  to  a  larger  Federal  force.1 
This  has  been  iterated  by  so  many  writers  of  history  that 
it  is  proper  in  this  place  to  comment  upon  it.  There  were 
no  better  soldiers  on  either  side  than  the  Kentucky  regi 
ments  who  were  so  conspicuous  in  the  protection  of  the 
State.  Their  officers  were  brave,  faithful,  and  full  of 

1  See  Appendix,  §  25,  p.  355. 
32Q 


330  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

activity  and  energy.  No  truer  men  were  in  the  service 
than  the  Hobsons,  Wards,  Shackelford,  Jacob,  Wolford, 
Hanson,  Boyle,  Fry,  Croxton,  Bristow,  the  Starlings, 
Harlan,  Smith,  Lindsay,  Murray,  Brown,  and  others,  and 
the  men  they  led.  They  were  vigilant  and  untiring, 
but  it  was  not  possible  for  them  to  concentrate  at  every 
point  where  the  danger  was,  and  it  occurred  most  fre 
quently  that  the  whole  of  some  raiding  command  was  met 
by  only  a  fragment  of  the  troops  operating  against  them. 
Sometimes,  therefore,  it  occurred  that  the  Federal  force 
would  be  overpowered.  Again,  it  would  occur  that  the 
raiders  would  meet  with  discomfiture  at  the  hands  of  a 
smaller  force  than  their  own.  It  would  require  a  volume 
to  give  the  details,  and  it  will  not  be  attempted  here. 

The  subject,  however,  naturally  leads  to  the  considera 
tion  of  the  relative  numbers  of  soldiers  engaged  in  the  war 
on  the  respective  sides,  and  to  a  removal  of  a  very  com 
mon  misapprehension  that  the  Federal  forces  were  vastly 
superior  in  numbers  to  the  Confederates.  If  the  disparity 
had  been  as  great  as  it  is  often  stated,  the  State  of  Ken 
tucky  could  have  been  protected  far  better  than  it  was. 
Troops  could  ill  be  spared  from  the  front  to  protect  the 
rear.  The  protection  of  the  rear  was  left  to  just  as  few  as 
could  possibly  do  the  work,  oftentimes  so  few  that  they 
were  overworked  with  incessant  riding  and  incessant  vigils, 
and  when  collisions  occurred  the  enemy  would  have  the 
superior  force. 

Misleading  statements  made  by  various  writers  convey 
the  impression  that  on  the  Federal  side  there  were  2,700,- 
ooo  soldiers  from  first  to  last,  while  on  the  Confederate 
side  there  were  only  600,000  all  told.  If  such  had  been 
the  case,  the  task  and  the  burden  which  were  cast  upon  the 
soldiers  of  the  "U  nion  to  overthrow  the  Confederacy  would 
have  been  much  lighter.  If  it  had  been  true,  then  it 
might  have  been  true,  also,  that  the  rough  handling  of  the 
Confederate  raiders  in  Kentucky  was  by  "overwhelming 


The  Number  Engaged  331 

numbers."  But  that  such  was  not  the  case  is  shown  by 
an  examination  of  the  records  of  the  period.  It  is 
interesting  to  examine  these  records,  for  it  is  from  them 
alone  that  the  truth  is  to  be  obtained.  All  statements 
and  estimates  which  ignore  the  records  are  valueless. 
Wild  figures  are  continually  given.  Assertions  are  made 
orally  and  in  writing.  It  is  only  by  considering  the 
official  documents  of  the  period  that  a  fair  approximation 
of  the  exact  numbers  and  the  ratio  between  them  can  be 
made,  and  as  this  vitally  bears  upon  the  hard  task  the 
Kentucky  Union  soldiers  had  in  protecting  and  defending 
their  State  from  constantly  recurring  incursions,  an  exami 
nation  of  the  subject  will  here  be  presented.  Alexander 
Stephens  gravely  writes  as  follows  in  his  history : 

"One  of  the  most  striking  features  was  the  great  disparity 
between  the  numbers  of  forces  on  the  opposite  sides.  From 
beginning  to  end  quite  2,000,000  more  Federal  troops  were 
brought  into  the  field  than  the  entire  force  of  the  Confederates. 
The  Federal  records  show  that  they  had  from  first  to  last 
2,600,000  men  in  the  service,  while  the  Confederates,  all  told, 
could  not  have  much,  if  any,  exceeded  600,000." 

This  character  of  general  statement  is  found  in  all  the 
Southern  accounts.  It  is  made  to  appear  in  books, 
pamphlets,  magazines,  papers,  speeches,  and  even  in 
scribed  upon  monuments. 

A  late  expression  is  by  the  Governor  of  Louisiana,  at 
the  annual  reunion  of  Confederates  at  New  Orleans,  1903. 
He  says : 

"With  a  total  enlistment  of  600,000  you  confronted 
2,800,000." 

When  writers  and  speakers  so  express  themselves,  it 
must  be  from  ignorance  or  from  wilful  misrepresentation. 
If  from  ignorance,  it  is  inexcusable,  for  the  record  facts 
are  open  to  all.  If  from  a  deliberate  purpose  to  mislead, 
it  is  unwise,  for  the  use  of  such  figures  will  cause  intelli 
gent  people  to  discredit  any  other  statement  they  make. 


332  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

We  will  first  inquire  as  to  the  alleged  2, 700,000 » 
Federal  soldiers,  and  then  consider  how  the  actual  number 
on  the  Confederate  side  compares  with  the  alleged 
600,000.  The  number  2,700,000  never  represented  the 
number  of  soldiers  in  the  armies  of  the  Union,  and  never 
purported  to  do  so.  All  it  ever  represented  was  the  total 
number  of  enlistments  appearing  on  the  records,  regardless 
of  how  the  number  was  made  up. 

The  same  records  which  give  the  figures  2,700,000 
expressly  show  that  the  2,700,000  enlistments  were 
made  up  by  numerous  re -enlistments.  One  man,  enlist 
ing  twice  or  thrice,  each  time  increased  the  number  of 
enlistments;  but  he  was  only  one  man. 

If  every  individual  soldier  in  the  war  had  enlisted  twice, 
the  2,700,000  figure  would  represent  just  half  that  many 
men,  or  1,350,000.  The  records  do  not  show  that  this 
occurred,  but  they  do  show  that  at  least  one  third,  or 
more,  of  the  2,700,000  recorded  enlistments  are  re- 
enlistments. 

At  the  first,  it  was  not  supposed  the  war  would  be  of 
long  duration,  and  men  were  called  out  for  one  hun 
dred  days'  service.  There  were  also  six-months,  nine- 
months,  twelve-months,  and  three-years  organizations. 
All  this  was  natural,  as  the  war  continued  longer  than 
was  first  expected.  So  also  it  was  natural  that,  as  the 
short-term  organizations  went  out  of  service,  the  men 
comprising  them  would  enter  the  service  again  in  the 
longer-term  organizations.  In  this  way  hundreds  of 
thousands  were  added  to  the  record  of  enlistments  with 
out  increase  of  men.  In  the  years  1863  and  1864  a  very 
large  proportion  of  the  three-years  men  re-enlisted  in  the 
veteran  organization,  and  this  increased  the  record  of 
enlistments  largely  over  200,000  without  adding  a  single 

1  Round  numbers.  In  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Life  of  Lincoln  it  is  said : 
"There  were  2,690,401  names  on  the  rolls,  but  these  included  re-enlist 
ments.'' 


The  Number  Engaged  333 

soldier.  This  fact  in  regard  to  the  2,700,000  aggregate  of 
enlistments  has  been  set  forth  at  large  in  ways  and  times 
innumerable.  To  ignore  it  is  simple  obstinacy.  It  is, 
in  fact,  what  is  called  "Cyclopedia  information."  Apple- 
ton's  American  Cyclopedia,  published  in  1876,  gives  the 
number  of  enlistments,  and  says  the  2,700,000  "does  not 
correctly  represent  the  number  of  different  persons  under 
arms,  as  it  includes  re-enlistments."  The  Encyclopedia 
Britannica  gives  1,500,000  as  the  total  number  of  soldiers 
of  the  Federal  armies.  Greeley's  history  of  the  war, 
published  in  1866,  gives  the  total  of  enlistments,  and  adds, 
"  As  many  of  these  were  mustered  in  twice  or  thrice,  it  is 
probable  that  there  were  not  more  than  1,500,000  men." 
In  Scribner's  Campaigns,  a  volume  of  "Statistics"  gives 
the  total  of  enlistments,  and  adds,  "  Men  who  re-enlist  are 
counted  twice  or  more  often."  The  actual  number  of 
men  who  by  enlisting  and  re-enlisting  made  up  the  paper 
record  of  2,700,000  has  been  variously  estimated  from 
1,500,000  to  2,000,000.  It  is  conservative  to  place  it  at 
not  over  1,700,000.  It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  it  reached 
2,000,000. 

Upon  this  point  the  census  of  1890  is  useful  in  the  same 
way  that  it  is  useful  in  ascertaining  the  number  of  the 
Confederates,  as  will  presently  appear.  This  census  shows 
the  total  number  of  soldiers  and  sailors  of  the  United 
States  living  in  1890  to  be  1,034,000.  Allowing  1,000,000 
of  these  to  be  ex-soldiers  of  the  Civil  War,  it  would  be 
impossible,  by  adding  all  who  had  died,  to  swell  the 
number  up  to  2,700,000.  If  we  add  the  350,000  who  lost 
their  lives  during  the  war,  it  would  require  that  650,000 
should  have  died  between  the  close  of  the  war  and  1890, 
in  order  even  to  reach  2,000,000,  and  as  this  is  excessive, 
it  shows  that  there  must  have  been  fewer  than  2,000,000, 
all  told. 

This  is  confirmed  by  another  fact :  It  is  a  record  fact 
that  there  were  1,000,000  volunteers  to  be  discharged  at 


334  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

the  close  of  the  war.1  Adding  the  350,000  who  lost  their 
lives  in  the  war,  it  would  require  over  1,200,000  additional 
to  make  2,700,000,  which  is  so  palpably  excessive  it  shows 
that  it  was  by  the  re-enlisting  of  the  same  men  that  the 
2,700,000  aggregate  of  enlistments  was  made  up. 

There  are  exact  records  of  the  enlistment  of  all  the 
Federal  soldiers,  according  to  the  various  terms  for  which 
they  enlisted.  From  these  records  calculation  has  been 
made  of  the  number  if  all  are  put  on  a  three-years  basis. 
The  result  is  1,556,678,  which  number  in  reality  represents 
the  actual  Federal  force  which  contended  with  the  Con 
federate  force  obtainable  by  volunteering  and  conscription. 

From  all  that  has  been  said  it  is  plain  that,  instead  of 
2,700,000  soldiers  in  the  Federal  armies,  the  number  was 
considerably  below  2,000,000.  And  according  to  the  best 
estimates  it  did  not  exceed  a  figure  between  1,500,000  and 
1,700,000  all  told.  This  latter  is  the  number  given  by 
Woodrow  Wilson  in  his  recently  published  history.  His 
language  is  that  the  Federal  forces  were  "  in  all  1,700,000." 
It  is  but  reasonable  to  conclude  that  this  distinguished 
historian  has  given  these  figures  after  investigating  the 
records,  and  making  the  proper  deduction  from  the  aggre 
gate  of  enlistments  which  is  required  by  re-enlistments. 

It  was  this  band  of  1,700,000  patriots,  who  went  to  the 
field  from  the  loyal  portion  of  the  population  of  the  non- 
seceding  States,  who  fought  the  battle.  They  were  not 
furnished  by  the  total  population,  but  went  from  that  ele 
ment  of  the  people  who  saw  nothing  but  ruin  and  disaster 
in  a  dismembered  Union. 

What  was  the  number  on  the  Confederate  side?  The 
various  estimates  have  been  gathered  in  a  volume  entitled 
Numbers  and  Losses  in  the  Civil  War,  by  Colonel  Liver- 

»  They  were  scattered  all  over  the  country,  some  in  the  main  armies,  and 
others  guarding  thousands  of  posts  in  cities  and  towns,  and  along  railroads, 
and  generally  protecting  the  territory  which  had  come  under  their  control. 


The  Number  Engaged  335 

more,  of  Boston,  but  it  would  be  impracticable  to  go  over 
them  all  at  this  time. 

We  have  seen  that  Stephens  gives  600,000  as  the  total 
from  first  to  last.  Many  others  make  the  same  statement, 
Adjutant-General  Cooper  says  no  record  of  the  number  is 
to  be  found.  In  1869  Dr.  Joseph  Jones,  a  Confederate 
surgeon,  published  a  pamphlet,  stating  that  "  the  available 
Confederate  force,  capable  of  active  service  in  the  field,  did 
not  during  the  entire  war  exceed  600,000."  He  says  his 
"calculation  is  given  only  as  an  approximation." 

In  a  recent  able  address  by  General  Thruston,  of  Nash 
ville,  an  ex-Federal  officer,  he  says  that  Dr.  Jones's  figures 
have  been  followed  and  republished  in  various  forms,  and 
quoted  and  requoted  until  in  the  South  they  have  come 
to  be  regarded  in  some  sort  as  official. 

In  the  South  the  number  600,000  is  popularly  stated  as 
the  total  of  the  Confederate  soldiers.  So  firmly  is  it 
fixed  that  it  controls  any  and  all  other  figures. 

Those  who  have  sworn  by  the  600,000  figure  are  ready 
to  dismiss  every  statement  that  conflicts.  And  yet  the 
sole  foundation  for  it  consists  in  estimates  which  com 
placently  disregard  the  record  figures.  The  statement  of 
Dr.  Jones  is  that  "  the  available  force  capable  of  effective 
service  in  the  field  did  not  during  the  entire  war  exceed 
600,000  men."  At  the  very  beginning  of  this  inquiry  we 
may  well  ask,  if  the  "  available  force  capable  of  effective 
service  in  the  field  "  was  600,000,  what  was  the  number 
of  those  not  so  available  and  effective  ?  For  these  must 
be  added  to  arrive  at  the  whole,  just  as  in  giving  the 
total  on  the  Federal  side  all  are  counted,  including  militia 
and  "  emergency  men  "  and  irregular  organizations  and 
veteran  reserves,  organized  at  the  very  end  of  the  war, 
the  greater  part  of  whom  never  served  in  any  capacity. 
General  Thruston  has  pointed  out  that  the  average 
effective  strength  of  the  Federal  army  was  sixty-five  per 
cent,  of  the  enrollment,  and  that  in  the  same  proportion 


336  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Dr.  Jones's  600,000  would  represent  an  enrollment  of 
about  1,000,000. 

According  to  the  census  of  1890,  there  were  then 
living  in  the  United  States  432,000  ex-Confederate 
soldiers.  These  figures  are  quoted  in  an  historical  report 
by  General  Stephen  D.  Lee  at  a  recent  Confederate 
reunion.  If  to  this  432,000  is  added  the  number  who  lost 
their  lives  during  the  war,  and  the  number  who  died  in 
the  twenty-five  years  between  the  close  of  the  war  and 
1890,  what  becomes  of  the  600,000  figure? 

On  this  point,  we  may  note  that  General  Thruston  gives 
the  figures  engraved  on  a  monument  at  Austin,  Texas, 
as  follows: 

"Number  of  men  enlisted:  Confederate  armies,  700,- 
ooo;  Federal  armies,  2,859,132.  Losses  from  all  causes: 
Confederate,  437,000;  Federal,  485,216." 

Now,  if  the  losses  were  437,000  in  the  war,  and  many 
having  died  between  the  close  of  the  war  and  1890,  and 
432,000  were  still  living  in  1890,  what  becomes  of  the 
600,000  figure? 

Again,  we  may  go  to  the  official  records,  and  by  adding 
the  totals  of  the  Confederate  forces,  as  given  early  in  the 
year  1864,  we  find  there  were  then  in  the  field,  according 
to  these  reports,  481,160.  If,  then,  we  add  all  those  who 
went  into  the  service  after  that  date  under  the  urgent 
calls,  and  also  add  all  who  had  been  killed  and  died  up 
to  that  time,  and  also  add  prisoners,  what  then  becomes 
of  the  600,000  figure? 

The  census  report  of  1890  alone  takes  the  600,000 
number  out  of  the  case,  for  no  method  of  ciphering  can  be 
devised  to  reduce  the  number  of  the  dead  during  the  war, 
and  for  twenty-five  years  after,  to  only  168,000. 

It  is  a  plain  proposition,  therefore,  that  there  were  more 
than  600,000,  and  the  question  arises,  is  there  any  record 
evidence  of  the  actual  number? 

The  answer  is,  there  is  record  evidence  to  show  that 


The  Number  Engaged  337 

the  total  number  of  Confederate  soldiers  was  1,000,000  or 
more.  Nor  is  this  in  any  sense  a  new  or  recent  statement. 
It  is  often  said,  when  the  facts  are  set  forth,  that  a 
discovery  has  been  made.  It  is  no  discovery ;  it  is  only 
bringing  forward  the  record  facts  of  the  case,  which  have 
existed  all  the  time.  The  Century  War  Book  published 
in  1887,  contains  the  following: 

"Official  returns  show  the  whole  number  of  men  enrolled 
(present  and  absent)  in  the  active  armies  of  the  Confederacy  as 
follows:  January  i,  1862,  318,011;  January  i,  1863,  465,584; 
January  i,  1864,  472>78i;  January  i,  1865,  439>675-  VerX 
few,  if  any,  of  the  local  land  forces,  and  none  of  the  naval, 
are  included  in  this  tabular  exhibit.  If  we  take  the  472,000 
men  in  service  at  the  beginning  of  1864,  and  add  thereto 
250,000  deaths  occurring  prior  to  that  date,  it  gives  over 
700,000.  The  discharges  for  disability  and  other  causes 
would  probably  increase  the  number  (inclusive  of  the  militia 
and  naval  forces)  to  over  1,000,000." 

It  is  stated  by  James  G.  Elaine,  in  his  history,  that  the 
Confederates  numbered  more  than  1 ,000,000.  In  General 
Thruston's  address  it  is  said:  "General  Ainsworth, 
of  the  War  Department,  has  recently  estimated  their 
strength  at  about  1,000,000."  In  Nicolay  and  Hay's 
life  of  Lincoln  the  number  is  stated  at  about  1,000,000. 
In  many  other  places  we  find  this  figure  given.  These 
are  here  mentioned  to  show  that  there  has  been  a 
repetition  of  the  1,000,000  figure  as  continuously  as  of 
the  600,000  figure,  the  former  following  the  record  facts, 
the  other  being  assertion  only. 

A  very  careful  estimate  has  been  made  of  the  total  Con 
federate  force  from  the  number  of  regiments  and  other 
organizations  known  to  the  records.  By  counting  them 
all,  and  allowing  a  fair  average  number  of  soldiers  to  each, 
it  has  been  estimated  that  the  total  number  was  about 
1,000,000. 

22 


Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

Another  estimate  has  been  made,  based  upon  the 
record  of  returns  of  the  Confederate  armies  at  different 
periods,  which  also  makes  a  total  of  about  1,000,000. 
Estimates  have  been  made  based  upon  the  census  of  1860, 
and  upon  the  reports  of  the  several  States  of  the  num 
bers  they  respectively  furnished.  These  make  more 
than  1,000,000. 

Another  method  of  computation  is  to  take  the  official 
returns  of  the  armies  on  both  sides  during  the  different 
years  of  the  struggle,  and  note  the  ratio.  This  shows 
that  the  Federal  forces  never  at  any  time  outnumbered 
the  Confederates  as  much  as  two  to  one ;  the  Federals, 
also,  being  scattered,  and  the  Confederates  concentrated. 

Manifestly,  any  estimate  which  counts  the  number  for 
mally  surrendering  as  the  total  of  the  Confederates 
in  the  closing  days  of  the  war  is  absolutely  valueless. 
The  number  surrendered  was  about  175,000.  But  the 
reports  show  that  three  months  before  the  end  there 
were  more  than  450,000  Confederate  soldiers.  What 
became  of  the  difference  between  that  number  and  the 
175,000?  The  reports  also  show  that  the  Army  of 
Northern  Virginia  had  150,554  three  months  before  the 
surrender,  and  at  the  surrender  there  were  less  than 
40,000.  What  became  of  that  difference?  There  can 
be  no  other  answer  than  that  many  dispersed  and  went  to 
their  homes  without  waiting  for  the  formalities  of  surren 
der.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  Confederate  reports  in  those 
last  three  months,  which  show  great  losses  by  desertion. 

General  Thruston,  who  has  carefully  studied  the 
records,  has  reached  the  conclusion  that  there  were 
about  1,100,000  Confederates,  all  told. 

Why  were  there  not  more  than  600,000  Confederate 
soldiers?  Why  not  more  than  1,000,000?  According  to 
the  census  of  1860,  there  were  more  than  1,200,000  men 
subject  to  military  duty  in  the  eleven  seceded  States,  and 


The  Number  Engaged  339 

aid  went  to  them  from  the  border  States  of  not  less  than 
100,000.  If  the  whole  number  of  Confederate  soldiers 
was  only  600,000,  we  have  the  spectacle  of  the  eleven 
Confederate  States  furnishing  only  500,000  soldiers ! 

Never  were  more  impassioned  calls  for  volunteers. 
Never  were  reasons  for  going  to  war  more  urgently 
represented.  It  was  called  a  fight  against  a  ruthless, 
brutal  invader.  It  was  called  a  fight  for  home  and 
country,  for  altar  and  fireside,  wife,  mother,  and  child. 
The  shirk  was  held  up  to  scorn  and  execration.  One  of 
the  great  leaders  said  it  was  not  a  question  of  who  could 
go,  but  a  question  of  who  could  stay.  Added  to  irre 
sistible  appeal  were  two  conscription  laws :  one  early 
in  the  war,  taking  all  of  the  usual  military  age,  and  one 
later,  robbing  the  cradle  and  the  grave;  and  yet  it  is 
unblushingly  claimed  that  only  500,000  men  could  be 
obtained  from  the  eleven  seceded  States!  If  this  were 
true,  under  all  the  circumstances,  it  would  be  cause  for 
shame  and  humiliation.  As  it  is  not  true,  those  who  utter 
it  ought  to  be  branded  as  slanderers  of  the  Southern  people. 

If  we  take  the  number  of  soldiers  furnished  to  the  Con 
federacy  according  to  the  published  claims  of  the  seceded 
States,  we  have  the  following  table : 

North  Carolina  (population  992,000) 127,000 

Tennessee  (population  1,100,000) 115,000 

Alabama  (population  964,000) 100,000 

Mississippi  (population  791,000) 85,000 

Virginia  (population  1,500,000) 150,000 

Georgia  (population  1,059,000) 130,000 

Florida  (population  140,000) 15,000 

Louisiana  (population  708,000) 53>°°o 

South  Carolina  (population  703,000) 60,000 

Arkansas  (population  435,000) 45,ooo 

Texas  (population  604,000) 50,000 

Making  a  total 930,000 


34°  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

To  which  must  be  added  those  who  went  from  the 
border  States  of  Kentucky,  Missouri,  and  Maryland, 
making  a  grand  total  of  more  than  1,000,000.  These 
figures  from  the  several  States  are  authentically  claimed 
and  published.  They  are  natural  considering  the  popu 
lations  of  the  States.  They  are  consistent  with  one 
another,  according  to  population.  Under  the  circum 
stances  of  the  case,  they  are  what  would  be  ex 
pected.  These  figures  show,  with  a  fair  uniformity,  one 
soldier  to  ten  of  total  population  in  all  the  States, 
and  this  very  uniformity  in  the  ratio  confirms  its  cor 
rectness. 

The  census  returns  of  the  United  States,  including  that 
of  1900,  just  published,  show  that  there  is  one  in  five  of 
population  of  military  age.  There  being  6,000,000 
white  population  in  the  Confederacy,  and  the  war  lasting 
four  years,  giving  opportunity,  as  Jefferson  Davis  said, 
for  the  growing-up  youths  to  enter  the  service,  it  is  plain 
there  were  first  and  last  more  than  1,000,000  men  in  the 
South  capable  of  military  duty,  the  number  in  fact  being 
over  1,200,000.  When,  therefore,  the  aid  of  the  border 
States  is  added,  the  question  may  be  asked  in  wonder, 
why  were  there  not  more  than  600,000  Confederate 
soldiers?  Why  not  more  than  1,000,000? 

The  foregoing  presentation  of  the  case  is  estab 
lished  by  unimpeachable  authority,  as  will  now  be 
shown. 

In  January,  1864,  an  official  report  was  made  to  the 
Confederate  government  by  Colonel  E.  D.  Blake, 
Superintendent  of  Registration,  which  is  published  in 
volume  3,  series  4,  page  95,  War  Records.  It  gives  in 
detail  the  number  of  men  furnished  up  to  that  time  (close 
of  1863)  from  six  of  the  Confederate  States.  The  other 
five  are  not  included  in  the  report.  The  six  which  are 
reported  are  as  follows : 


The  Number  Engaged  341 

POPULATION.  FURNISHED. 

Virginia 1,500,000  153,876 

North  Carolina 992,000  88,457 

South  Carolina 703,000  60,127 

Georgia ,     1,057,000  106,157 

Alabama 964,000  90*857 

Mississippi 791,000  66,982 


6,007,000  566>456 

Here  is  an  authoritative  official  statement,  made  not 
for  controversy,  but  for  practical  use  in  the  midst  of  the 
conflict,  and  in  strict  line  of  duty.  It  outweighs  all  the 
approximations  and  guesses  made  since  the  war  for  the 
purpose  of  minimizing  the  numbers  engaged;  and  when 
analyzed,  it  conforms  to  the  figures  just  spoken  of  as 
natural,  reasonable,  and  consistent. 

The  six  States  mentioned  furnished,  up  to  the  close  of 
1863,  566,000  soldiers.  The  war  lasted  through  1864  and 
three  months  of  1865,  during  which  time  the  appeals  to 
rally  to  the  cause  were  most  urgent.  The  records  show 
that  in  this  period  of  the  war  General  Lee  was  peculiarly 
active  in  urging  the  increase  of  the  army.  He  repeatedly 
insisted  that  all  should  be  brought  into  the  field.  He 
advised  that  all  the  work  of  the  army  should  be  done  by 
negroes,  so  as  to  send  all  detailed  men  into  the  ranks. 
His  language  was:  "Get  out  our  entire  arms-bearing 
population  and  relieve  all  detailed  men  with  negroes." 
The  records  also  show  that  at  this  period  the  Bureau  of 
Conscription  was  sweeping  into  the  ranks  every  male 
white,  between  seventeen  and  forty-five,  with  absolutely 
unsparing  zeal  and  diligence.  Under  the  extraordinary 
pressure  just  at  that  time,  we  may  be  sure  these  six 
States  sent  in  enough  new  soldiers  to  run  the  figures 
far  above  600,000.  Thus,  out  of  a  total  population  of 
6,000,000  in  these  six  States,  more  than  600,000  soldiers 
went  to  the  field.  In  this  we  see  the  ratio  of  one  soldier 


342  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

to  ten  of  the  total  population  already  mentioned.     Now, 
let  us  take  the  other  five  seceded  States : 

Arkansas,  with  a  population  of 435,000 

Texas,  with  a  population  of 604,000 

Tennessee,  with  a  population  of 1,100,000 

Louisiana,  with  a  population  of 708,000 

Florida,  with  a  population  of 140,000 


2,987,000 

One  soldier  of  ten  in  total  population  is  as  natural  from 
these  as  from  the  above  six,  which  were  officially 
reported.  This  gives  nearly  300,000  to  be  added  to  the 
above  600,000,  or  over,  and  to  this  must  be  added  those 
who  went  from  the  border  States,  Missouri,  Kentucky, 
and  Maryland,  making  a  total  of  1 ,000,000  or  more. 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  it  is  plain  that  600,000  in 
no  way  represents  the  total  number  of  soldiers  who  fought 
for  the  Confederacy.  It  is  also  plain  that  2,700,000  in 
no  way  represents  the  number  of  Federal  soldiers.  To  so 
use  these  figures  shows  a  partisanship  which  is  willing  to 
ignore  the  record  facts,  and  accept  as  truth  the  pleasing 
fallacy  of  the  simple  assertion  of  three  or  four  or  five  to 
one. 

The  inexorable  logic  of  the  official  records  shows  that 
on  the  Federal  side  there  were  not  over  about  1,700,000 
soldiers,  while  on  the  Confederate  side,  taking  statements 
-of  the  several  States  and  adding  them  together,  and 
taking  the  official  Confederate  records,  there  were  not  less 
than  1,000,000,  and  according  to  many  estimates  made 
from  Confederate  records  more  than  1,000,000. 

This  corresponds  with  the  figures  given  by  the  latest 
and  most  reliable  historian,  Woodrow  Wilson,  who  we 
have  seen  places  the  number  of  Federal  soldiers  at 
1,700,000.  And  in  regard  to  the  Confederates  he  uses 
this  language : 


The  Number  Engaged  343 

"The  total  military  population  of  the  South  was 
1,065,000;  900,000  of  these  she  drew  into  the  armies." 

To  this  900,000  must  be  added,  of  course,  those  who 
went  from  the  border  States,  which  would  make  the 
number  at  least  1,000,000. 

This  eminent  author,  in  stating  the  total  military 
population  of  the  South  at  1,065,000,  only  gives  the 
number  as  it  stood  at  the  outset  of  the  war.  In  the 
course  of  the  four  years  of  struggle  others  came  up  to  the 
requisite  age,  and  were  freely  used,  as  shown  not  only  by 
this  author  himself,  but  also  by  the  President  of  the  Con 
federacy  in  his  speech  in  Georgia  in  the  year  1864. 

Nor  does  this  statement  of  the  military  population  of 
the  South  exhaust  its  resources  in  men.  It  is  well  known 
that  there  is  much  to  be  done  in  warfare  beside  what  is 
done  on  the  firing  line.  A  vast  amount  of  work  and 
labor  must  be  performed,  requiring  even  greater  physical 
strength  than  to  carry  and  fire  the  musket.  The 
3,000,000  or  4,000,000  of  negroes  in  the  South  are  by  no 
means  to  be  left  out  in  considering  the  strength  of  the 
Confederacy.  Jefferson  Davis  says  in  his  history,  volume 
i,  p.  303 :  "Much  of  our  success  was  due  to  the  much- 
abused  institution  of  African  servitude,  for  it  enabled 
the  white  men  to  go  into  the  army  and  leave  the  cultiva 
tion  of  their  fields  and  care  of  their  flocks,  as  well  as  their 
wives  and  children,  to  those  who,  in  the  language  of  the 
Constitution,  were  'held  to  service  or  labor.' 

From  the  beginning  of  the  struggle  to  the  end,  negroes 
were  employed  in  large  numbers  to  do  the  work  which  in 
the  Federal  armies  was  done  by  enlisted  soldiers.  Mr. 
Davis  might,  therefore,  enlarge  his  remark  that  the 
negroes  did  the  home  work  while  the  white  men  were 
fighting,  by  saying  also  that  negroes  did  the  fatigue 
duty  of  the  armies  while  the  white  soldiers  fought  on  the 
front  line. 

Fort  Donelson  was  constructed  by  negro  labor  drawn 


344  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

from  Tennessee  and  Kentucky  by  forcible  impressment. 
The  records  show  that  negroes  labored  on  the  fortifica 
tions  for  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia  from  Manassas 
to  Petersburg.  Also  at  Fort  Fisher  and  Wilmington,  and 
Charleston  and  Savannah,  in  Georgia,  at  Vicksburg,  and 
all  other  points.  The  reports  of  Confederate  generals, 
of  the  Confederate  government,  and  of  State  govern 
ments  make  numerous  mention  of  negro  labor.  At  an 
early  period  Generals  Magruder  and  Kirby  Smith,  in  the 
West,  report  that  many  soldiers  were  detailed  as  team 
sters  and  that  their  places  should  be  supplied  by  negroes. 
The  Confederate  Congress  authorized  this  to  be  done. 
General  Beauregard  ordered  negroes  to  be  employed  on 
fortifications.  At  one  time  General  Lee  called  for  6000 
negroes  to  labor  on  fortifications,  and  was  authorized  to 
impress  them.  Again,  the  Secretary  of  War  directed 
General  Lee  to  impress  20,000  negroes  for  employment  in 
the  army.  General  Bragg  advocated  calling  out  the 
negroes  just  as  troops  were  called  out.  The  Legislatures 
of  the  States  passed  laws  for  impressment  of  negroes. 
The  authorities  at  Richmond  authorized  the  military  to 
obtain  as  many  slaves  as  were  necessary  for  repairing 
railroads. 

Such  are  some  of  the  numerous  proofs  found  in  the 
official  records  of  the  immense  use  of  negroes  in  perform 
ing  the  labor  of  the  army  which  would  otherwise  have 
fallen  upon  the  soldiers,  thus  releasing  the  soldier  from 
handling  the  pick  and  spade  and  axe  and  wagon  whip,  so 
that  he  might  handle  the  musket. 

Against  the  armament  of  the  South,  with  all  its 
strength  as  shown  by  the  record  facts,  the  soldiers  for  the 
Union  had  to  advance  and  contend.  They  were  to  stand 
to  the  work  until  organized  effort  to  dismember  the  great 
American  Republic  was  broken  to  pieces  and  destroyed. 
The  soldiers  who,  by  repeated  re-enlistments,  made  the 


The  Number  Engaged  345 

paper  aggregate  of  2,700,000,  but  in  actual  numbers  were 
not  more  than  1,700,000,  had  to  cany  on  the  war  through 
difficulties  which  appear  insurmountable  as  we  now  look 
back  upon  them.  That  it  required  more  soldiers  to 
wage  the  war  against  the  Confederacy  than  were  neces 
sary  to  defend  it  is  too  plain  a  proposition  for  anything 
but  simple  mention.  General  Thruston,  in  discussing  the 
subject,  illustrates  it  by  the  war  in  South  Africa.  He 
says  superiority  of  ten  or  more  to  one  did  not  bring 
success  to  British  arms  at  once.  Great  Britain  sent  out 
445,000  soldiers  against  30,000  or  40,000  Boers.  Yet  this 
"wretched  little  population  of  Boers,"  as  Lord  Salisbury 
called  them,  defied  the  power  and  prowess  of  the  whole 
British  Empire  for  two  or  three  years. 

The  fighting  qualities  of  the  people  of  the  seceded 
States,  the  skill  of  their  officers,  the  enthusiasm  for  their 
cause,  were  all  of  the  highest  order.  Such  people  were 
not  to  be  quickly  overcome.  They  had  a  great  and  rich 
territory,  and  the  aid  of  a  laboring  population,  able- 
bodied,  and  completely  subservient.  They  fought  on  the 
defensive,  with  short  lines  of  communication,  with  no  foe 
in  the  rear.  That  their  cause  did  not  succeed  reflects  a 
credit  upon  the  fighting  qualities  of  the  National  soldiery, 
and  upon  the  ability  of  their  leaders,  which  makes  all 
words  of  praise  insignificant.  The  best  material  of  the 
country  volunteered  to  save  the  Union,  and  no  eulogy 
can  do  justice  to  the  great  uprising.  The  sudden 
display  of  energy,  the  march  in  panoply  of  war,  the 
purely  patriotic  enthusiasm,  the  continued  resolution, 
and  undying  courage  and  devotion  through  campaigns 
and  battle,  all  go  to  make  up  the  brightest  page  in  the 
annals  of  war. 


APPENDIX 

§  I.  Genera]  B.  W.  Duke,  in  his  history  of  Morgan's 
cavalry,  emphasizes  the  charges  of  bad  faith  on  the  part 
of  the  Kentucky  Unionists,  and  in  mentioning  the  act  of 
the  Union  Legislature  in  September,  1861,  which  directed 
Confederate  General  Polk  to  withdraw  from  the  State, 
says:  "But  the  cup  of  shame  was  not  yet  full — this 
unblushing  Legislature  passed  yet  other  resolutions  to 
publish  to  the  world  the  duplicity  and  dissimulation  which 
had  characterized  their  entire  conduct '. "  (P.  52.) 

Such  writing  is  not  history. 

The  names  of  many  of  the  leading  Unionists  so 
characterized  are  found  in  a  chapter  in  this  work.  Nine 
had  been  elected  to  Congress  in  June,  1861.  The 
Legislature  mentioned  was  elected  in  August,  1861. 

The  charge  of  duplicity  falls  upon  such  Kentuckians  as 
Guthrie,  Nicholas,  Breckinridge,  Wickliffe,  the  Robin 
sons,  Marshalls,  Speeds,  Harlans,  Dixon,  Bullitt,  Wads- 
worth,  and  hundreds  of  like  noble  men  associated  with 
them. 

§  2.  The  acknowledgment  that  slaves  were  property, 
and  that  there  was  a  state  of  war,  justifies  completely 
the  Act  of  Emancipation.  Mr.  Lincoln  said:  "Armies 
the  world  over  destroy  enemies'  property  when  they 
cannot  use  it,  and  even  destroy  their  own  to  keep  it  from 
the  enemy.  Civilized  belligerents  do  all  in  their  power  to 
help  themselves  or  hurt  the  enemy  except  in  a  few  things 
regarded  as  barbarous  or  cruel." 

§  3.  This  was  the  same  position  as  that  of  Jefferson 
Davis.  His  State  having  called  a  convention,  he  still 
remained  in  the  United  States  Senate  and,  as  he  says 

346 


Appendix  347 

himself,  "sought  by  every  practical  mode  to  obtain  such 
measures  as  would  allay  the  excitement  and  afford  to 
the  South  such  security  as  would  prevent  the  final  step, 
the  ordinance  of  secession  from  the  Union."  (Davis's 
History,  vol.  i.,  p.  302.) 

§  4.  On  the  20th  of  April,  1861,  Judge  Henry  Pirtle, 
the  distinguished  Chancellor,  addressed  a  letter  to  Gov 
ernor  Magofrm,  in  which  he  says : 

"Our  State  has  in  her  primary  meetings  of  citizens, 
and  in  her  General  Assembly,  taken  the  position  of  a 
mediator,  asking  for  peace  and  settlement  of  difficul 
ties  between  divisions  of  her  distracted  countrymen." 
(Louisville  Journal.} 

§  5.  On  the  26th  of  April,  1861,  Judge  William  F. 
Bullock,  of  Louisville,  made  a  speech  at  Cincinnati,  in 
which  he  said : 

"We  believe  she  [Kentucky]  can  retain  a  position  of 
neutrality.  She  claims  she  can  act  the  part  of  a 
mediator,  but  go  for  the  Union  as  it  was,  and  the  Con 
stitution  as  it  is."  (Louisville  Journal,  April  27,  1861.) 

§  6.  An  act  of  the  Confederate  Congress  approved 
March  6,  1861,  provided  a  force  not  to  exceed  100,000  to 
repel  invasion  and  maintain  possession  of  Confederate 
territory,  and  insure  tranquillity  and  independence.  (  War 
Records,  Serial  No.  127,  p.  126.)  (Res.  p.  4.) 

§  7.  "  The  foot  of  the  oppressor  is  on  the  soil  of 
Georgia.  He  comes  with  lust  in  his  eye,  poverty  in  his 
purse,  and  hell  in  his  heart.  He  comes  a  robber  and  a 
murderer.  How  shall  you  meet  him?  With  the  sword 
at  the  threshold— with  death  for  him  or  for  yourself. 

"But  more  than  this,  let  every  woman  have  a  torch, 
every  child  a  firebrand.  Let  the  loved  homes  of  our 
youth  be  made  ashes  and  the  fields  of  our  heritage  be 
made  desolate.  Let  blackness  and  ruin  mark  your 
departing  steps  if  depart  you  must,  and  let  a  desert  more 
terrible  than  Sahara  welcome  the  vandals.  Let  every 


348  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

city  be  levelled  by  the  flame,  and  every  village  be  laid  in 
ashes. "  Extract  from  an  address  to  the  people  of  Georgia 
signed  by  Howell  Cobb,  R.  Toombs,  M.  J.  Crawford, 
Thomas  R.  R.  Cobb,  published  in  the  Courier  at  Bowling 
Green,  February  8,  1862. 

§  8.  Hon.  Charles  A.  Wickliffe  was  in  Congress  in 
August,  1861,  and,  having  heard  the  result  of  the  August 
election,  rose  in  his  place  and  said : 

"Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  inform  the  House  that  this  morn 
ing  the  news  from  Kentucky  is  to  the  effect  that  she 
is  wholly  for  the  Union;  that  as  she  was  one  of  the  first 
to  come  into  it,  she  will  be  one  of  the  last  to  leave  it." 
(  Congressional  Globe,  Au  g u st  6,  1 86 1 . ) 

§  9.  Dr.  William  Bailey,  who  is  now  at  the  head  of 
the  medical  profession  in  Louisville,  was  then  a  young 
man  who  had  been  educated  at  a  military  school.  He 
raised  a  company,  which  he  drilled,  and  he  was  called 
upon  to  drill  other  companies.  Sometimes  several  com. 
panics  combined,  and  were  drilled  as  a  regiment  by  him. 
From  these  organizations  many  went  as  line  officers  into 
the  regular  volunteer  regiments.  Dr.  Bailey  himself 
became  the  surgeon  of  the  Ninth  Kentucky  Cavalry. 
The  services  of  Dr.  Bailey  as  an  officer  prior  to  his  taking 
commission  as  surgeon  were  extremely  valuable  in 
early  laying  the  foundation  for  militia  companies  com 
posed  of  men  who  were  not  so  situated  as  to  go  into  the 
regularly  enlisted  organizations,  but  continued  through 
the  war  as  guardians  and  protectors  of  their  respective 
communities. 

§  10.  In  Hay  and  Nicolay's  Life  of  Lincoln  a  report 
of  a  committee  to  distribute  the  arms  brought  to  Ken- 
tucky  by  General  Nelson  is  quoted  from,  to  the  effect 
that: 

"This  Board  have  superintended  the  distribution  of  the 
whole  quantity  of  5000  muskets  and  bayonets.  We 
have  been  reliably  informed  and  believe  that  they  have 


Appendix  349 

been  put  in  the  hands  of  true  and  devoted  Union  men 
who  are  pledged  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  enforcement  of  the  laws;  and  if 
the  occasion  should  arise  to  use  them  to  put  down  all 
attempts  to  take  Kentucky  by  violence  or  fraud  out  of 
the  Union." 

The  committee  added  that  this  had  greatly  strength 
ened  the  cause,  that  20,000  more  could  be  safely  in 
trusted  to  the  Union  men  who  were  applying  for  them 
and  eager  to  get  them,  and  recommended  that  the  system 
of  arming  Kentucky  be  resumed  and  widely  extended. 

The  report  was  signed  by  Charles  A.  Wickliffe, 
Garrett  Davis,  J.  H.  Garrard,  James  Harlan,  James 
Speed,  Thornton  F.  Marshall,  J.  F.  Robinson,  W.  B. 
Horton,  J.  K  Goodloe,  J.  B.  Bruner,  Joshua  F.  Speed. 
(H  and  N.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  237.) 

§11.  "  MONTGOMERY,  ALA.,  April  22,  1861. 

"GOVERNOR  B.  MAGOFFIN, 
"Frankfort,  Ky. 

"  SIR : — Your  patriotic  response  to  the  requisition  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  for  troops  to  coerce  the 
Southern  States  justifies  the  belief  that  your  people  are 
prepared  to  unite  with  us  in  repelling  the  common  enemy 
of  the  South.  Virginia  needs  your  aid.  I  therefore 
request  you  to  furnish  one  regiment  of  infantry  without 
delay  to  rendezvous  at  Harper's  Ferry,  Va.  It  must 
consist  of  ten  companies  of  not  less  than  sixty-four  men 
each  [etc,] 

"L.  P.  WALKER,  Secretary  of  War/' 

(War  Records,  Serial  No.  127,  p  231.) 

§  12.     As  to  violation  of  neutrality: 

General  Zollicoffer,  on  August  6,  1861,  wrote  from 
Knoxville  to  the  authorities  at  Richmond  as  follows. 
After  mentioning  the  posts  of  military  organization  in 
Kentucky,  he  says: 


35°  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

"  The  principal  gaps  in  the  mountain  are  Cumberland,  Big 
Creek,  Elk,  and  the  passages  by  Chitwoods  and  Camp 
McGinnis,  but  there  are  innumerable  bridle-path  passes  inter 
vening  between  Cumberland  Gap  and  Camp  McGinnis.  My 
purpose  is  to  form  a  chain  of  infantry  posts  at  Cumberland 
Gap,  Big  Creek  Gap,  Elk  Gap,  Camp  McGinnis  and  Living 
ston,  for  which  I  have  thirty-three  companies  which  I  propose 
to  use  as  scouts,  advance  posts,  and  to  pass  intelligence 
rapidly  along  the  line  of  infantry  posts." 

§  13.  Col.  R.  M.  Kelly  of  Louisville  prepared  a  full 
account  of  the  Union  Club  for  the  Loyal  Legion.  (See 
vol.  iii.,  p.  278,  Ohio  Commandery.) 

§  14.  As  General  Humphrey  Marshall  had  been  active 
in  organizing  troops  for  the  Confederacy  in  the  summer 
of  1861,  and  went  out  of  the  State  in  the  fall  of  1861  into 
southwestern  Virginia,  it  would  be  natural  to  suppose 
that  he  had  a  considerable  force  of  Kentuckians  with 
him.  In  September,  1862,  when  he  was  to  co-operate 
with  the  force  of  Generals  Bragg  and  Kirby  Smith,  by 
moving  into  Kentucky,  he  reported  the  strength  of  his 
command  as  follows:  54th  Virginia,  750;  2Qth  Virginia, 
300;  2 ist  Virginia,  250;  43d  Tennessee,  700;  5th  Ken 
tucky,  750.  These  were  infantry.  His  cavalry  was  as 
follows:  Kentucky  Rifle  Battalion,  350;  Virginia  Rifle 
Battalion,  300;  Shawhan's  Cavalry,  200;  Caldwell's  com 
pany,  30.  It  thus  appears  that  all  the  Kentucky  troops 
he  had  were  one  infantry  regiment,  750,  and  one  cavalry 
battalion,  350 — in  all,  only  noo  Kentuckians. 

General  Marshall  says  in  his  report : 

"I  want  you  to  say  whether  in  rear  of  my  line  in  Kentucky 
I  shall  at  once  put  conscript  law  into  execution.  I  think  it 
may  be  as  well  to  do  so.  I  have  instructed  my  officers  as 
follows:  Men  must  now  choose  their  side.  If  they  are  on  our 
side,  they  must  obey  the  law  of  Congress  and  join  the  army  at 
once.  If  on  the  other  side,  they  must  not  be  left  in  my  rear, 
and  must  go  forth  and  stand  the  draft  the  Union  men  are 


Appendix  351 

enforcing  in  Kentucky.  When  men  are  not  within  the 
military  ages,  I  enjoin  them  to  come  forward  and  take  the 
oath  of  allegiance,  and  if  they  do  not  come  they  should 
be  considered  and  treated  as  enemies.  My  policy  is  to 
make  an  armed  occupation  of  the  State  as  far  as  we  penetrate 
it,  and  to  organize  our  system,  leaving  only  friends  be 
hind  us." 

It  should  be  noted  that  at  that  time  there  was  no 
drafting  of  Union  soldiers — simply  volunteering.  And 
when  historians  complain  of  the  Federal  policy  in  Ken 
tucky,  they  should  not  overlook  the  methods  of  the 
Confederate  leaders  toward  the  Unionists  of  Kentucky. 

§  15.  When  war  is  raging  it  is  not  an  act  of  despotism 
for  either  side  to  protect  itself  from  the  injury  resulting 
from  opposition  within  its  own  lines.  When  non-com 
batants  in  Kentucky  presumed  upon  the  leniency  of  the 
National  authorities  to  give  aid  and  comfort  to  those 
against  whom  the  government  was  at  war,  they  brought 
upon  themselves  the  natural  consequences  of  being  dealt 
with  by  arrest  and  imprisonment.  The  existence  of 
actual  war  made  it  necessary  to  deal  severely  with  any 
one  who  was  helping  the  enemy.  Any  other  course 
would  have  been  trifling  when  the  fight  was  on  and  the 
lives  of  soldiers  were  at  stake.  The  singular  insensibility 
of  many  persons  in  Kentucky  to  so  plain  a  proposition 
caused  much  trouble,  and  much  complaint  against  alleged 
despotic  acts.  Unreasoning  opposition  to  the  military 
grew  up  because  men  persisted  in  acting  as  though 
it  was  a  time  of  peace,  and  not  a  time  of  actual  raging 
war. 

§  1 6.  Another  act  recited  that,  whereas  the  Legisla 
ture  at  Frankfort  undertook  to  appropriate  $5,000,000 
for  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  it  is  enacted  that 
the  property  of  every  citizen  of  the  State  is  exempt  from 
the  payment  of  any  part  thereof,  and  any  officer  who 
shall  undertake  to  collect  such  money  shall  be  guilty  of 


352  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

high  misdemeanor  and  be  fined  not  less  than  $100  nor 
more  than  $500. 

Approved  Dec.  21,  1861. 

(War  Records,  Serial  No.  127,  p.  807.) 

§  17.  General  Speed  S.  Fry,  in  his  testimony  before 
the  Buell  Court  of  Inquiry,  said : 

"My  opinion  is  that  Bragg  and  Smith  had  a  double  object 
in  view  in  invading  Kentucky.  One  was  to  provide  their 
army  with  such  provisions  and  clothing  as  they  could  take 
from  the  citizens;  another  was,  if  it  was  in  their  power,  to 
hold  Kentucky  by  power  of  arms  and  make  it  a  part  and 
parcel  of  the  Southern  Confederacy.  They  gathered  together 
all  the  provisions  and  clothing  they  could  find  in  the  portion 
of  the  State  through  which  they  passed,  but  finding  that  they 
were  unable  to  hold  the  State  against  the  army  that  was  pur 
suing  them,  they  determined  to  evacuate  it." 

§  1 8.  General  Speed  S.  Fry,  reporting  from  Camp 
Nelson,  December  2,  1864,  says:  "The  most  horrid 
outrages  are  being  committed ;  that  within  the  past  few 
days  fourteen  inoffensive  citizens,  including  one  dis 
charged  soldier,  have  been  killed  in  Washington  County 
alone."  (War  Records,  Serial  No.  94,  p.  28.) 

§  19.  On  the  subject  of  retaliation,  Jefferson  Davis 
says  that  on  June  3,  1861,  a  ship  sailing  under  a  Con 
federate  commission  was  captured  and  the  crew  threat 
ened  with  treatment  not  as  prisoners  of  war;  that  he  at 
once  wrote  to  President  Lincoln  advising  him  that  the 
same  fate  would  be  visited  on  prisoners  held  by  the  Con 
federacy  as  was  suffered  by  the  crew.  His  language  was, 
"Retaliation  will  be  extended  so  far  as  shall  be  requisite 
to  secure  the  abandonment  of  a  practice  unknown  to  the 
warfare  of  civilized  man." 

At  a  later  period  another  privateer  was  captured,  and 
the  crew  threatened  with  death.  "Immediately,"  says 
Mr.  Davis,  "I  instructed  General  Winder  at  Richmond 


Appendix  353 

to  select  one  prisoner  of  the  highest  rank  to  be  confined 
in  a  cell  appropriate  to  convicted  felons  and  treated  in  all 
respects  as  if  convicted  and  to  be  held  for  execution  in  the 
same  manner  as  might  be  adopted  for  the  execution  of 
the  prisoner  of  war  in  Philadelphia.  He  was  further 
instructed  to  select  thirteen  other  prisoners  of  the  highest 
rank  to  be  held  as  hostages  for  the  thirteen  prisoners  held 
in  New  York  for  trial  as  pirates."  (Vol.  ii.,  p.  n.) 

§  20.  The  indiscriminate  condemnation  of  all  Federal 
officers  simply  because  they  held  command,  and  utterly 
regardless  of  anything  done  or  not  done,  is  illustrated  in 
the  case  of  General  John  M.  Palmer.  He  was  an  officer 
of  the  highest  character  and  of  national  reputation  as  an 
eminent  civilian  as  well  as  soldier;  yet  being  in  command 
of  the  District  of  Kentucky  he  is  called  in  Collins's 
History  a  "petty  tyrant"  and  "autocrat."  Collins  also 
sneeringly  speaks  of  his  "commanding  the  military,  the 
negroes,  and  the  churches  in  Kentucky."  General 
Palmer  having  issued  an  order  closing  certain  gambling 
houses  in  Louisville,  Collins  also  calls  this  "military 
interference  in  order  to  keep  his  hand  in."  Collins  also 
says:  "Some  of  the  very  men  who  were  among  the 
foremost  to  welcome  and  cajole  the  petty  tyrant  General 
John  M.  Palmer,  when  he  made  his  advent  in  Kentucky 
as  the  successor  of  General  Burbridge,  are  now  willing  to 
see  the  latter  reinstated  in  preference."  General  Palmer 
was  indicted  by  the  State  grand  jury  for  "enticing  slaves 
to  leave  the  State,"  but  the  court  dismissed  the  charges. 

The  attitude  of  the  Southern  sympathizers  toward  any 
and  every  one  who  stood  for  the  Union  is  thus  shown  by 
their  perfectly  reckless  and  unjust  treatment  of  such  an 
honorable  and  fair  man  as  General  Palmer. 

§  21.     It  is  a  peculiar  fact  that  although  Burbridge  was 

charged  with  "military  murders,"  being  his  retaliatory 

executions,  no  notice  appears  to  have  been  taken  of  the 

same  by  the  Confederate  authorities.     Burbridge  was  not 

23 


354  Union  Cause  in  Kentucky 

outlawed  as  some  other  generals  were,  neither  was  there 
any  retaliation  for  the  "murders"  he  was  charged  with. 
If  they  had  been  so  infamous  and  as  inexcusable  as 
represented,  it  seems  almost  certain  some  action 
would  have  been  taken  by  the  Richmond  govern 
ment. 

§  22.  Although  such  severe  measures  were  decreed 
against  Federal  officers  who  might  command  negro 
troops,  the  Confederacy,  under  the  advice  of  General  Lee 
and  President  Davis,  passed  a  law  for  making  soldiers  of 
the  negroes ;  so  that  in  this  respect  both  sides  were  alike. 
The  whole  story  is  told  by  Jefferson  Davis  in  his  history 
that  General  Lee  gave  his  "unqualified  advocacy  of  the 
proposed  measure,"  and  that  he  himself  "argued  the 
question  with  members  of  Congress,"  and  that  "finally 
the  bill  passed."  (Jefferson  Davis's  History,  vol.  i.,  pp. 
515  to  519.) 

§  23.  While  there  were  men  who  supported  McClellan 
upon  the  Chicago  platform,  it  may  be  said  without 
qualification  that  the  Kentucky  Unionists  who  supported 
him  did  so  upon  his  letter  of  acceptance,  in  which  he 
pledged  himself,  if  elected,  to  prosecute  the  war.  The 
expressions  of  his  letter  particularly  acceptable  to  them 
were  as  follows : 

"The  preservation  of  our  Union  was  the  sole  avowed 
object  for  which  the  war  was  commenced." 

"The  Union  is  the  one  condition  of  peace." 

""The  Union  must  be  preserved  at  all  hazards." 

*'  No  peace  can  be  permanent  without  Union."  That 
If  elected  he  would  "re-establish  the  supremacy  of  the 
law,"  and  do  his  best  "to  restore  the  Union." 

§  24.  When  historians  make  a  point  of  bringing  to  the 
front  the  miseries,  real  or  imaginary,  which  war  entails, 
it  is  but  fair  to  take  into  account  like  conditions  on  both 
sides  and  not  make  it  appear  that  one  side  alone  is  guilty. 
In  a  communication  from  Governor  Vance  of  North 


Appendix  355 

Carolina  to  President  Davis,  February  9,  1864,  he  uses 
this  language : 

''Conscription,  ruthless  and  unrelenting,  has  only  been 
exceeded  in  the  severity  of  its  execution  by  the  impress 
ment  of  property,  frequently  intrusted  to  men  unprinci 
pled,  dishonest,  and  filled  to  overflowing  with  all  the 
petty  meanness  of  small  minds  dressed  in  a  little  brief 
authority."  (War  Records,  Serial  No.  108,  p.  818.) 

§  25.  In  a  review  in  the  American  Historical  Review, 
July,  1904,  of  Lord  Wolseley's  book,  The  Story  of  a 
Soldier's  Life,  it  is  said : 

"In  England,  many  still  believe  that  the  Southerners  won 
all  the  victories,  and  were  eventually  crushed  by  five  to  one  of 
their  own  force.  Few  appreciate  the  fact  that  the  numbers 
afoot  until  the  last  year,  when  the  Confederacy  was  already 
lost,  were  but  as  three  to  two,  while  interior  lines,  and 
perhaps  better  strategy,  enabled  the  Confederates  to  bring  as 
many  men  into  tactical  touch  as  the  Federals. ' ' 


WORKS  ON  THE  CIVIL  WAR 


THE  ABOLITIONISTS 

Together  with  Personal  Memoirs  of  the  Struggle  for  Human  Rights, 

1830-1864. 
By  JOHN  T.  HUME 
Crown  8vo.     Net  $1.25. 

The  author  of  this  book  was  himself  a  younger  member  of  the  little  band  of  men  and 
women  who,  under  the  name  of  "  Abolitionists,"  devoted  their  lives  to  the  cause  of 
freedom  for  the  colored  race.  His  memoirs  of  the  old-time  leaders  and  his  own  personal 
experiences  are  valuable  documents  in  the  inside  history  of  of  our  country. 

This  weighty  and  dispassionate  essay  deserves  the  widest  circulation  and  calm  pon 
dering."—  The  Nation. 

A  JOURNEY  IN  THE  SEABOARD  SLAVE  STATES 

With  Remarks  on  their  Economy 

By  FREDERICK  LAW  OLMSTED 

Author  of  "  Walks  and  Talks  with  an  American  Farmer  in  New  England  "  etc. 

With  a  biographical  sketch  by  FREDERICK  LAW  OLMSTED,  JR.,  and  with  an  intro 
duction  by  W.  P.  Trent. 

Second  edition.     Two  volumes.     With  portrait.     Octavo,  net  $5.00. 

Although  published  nearly  fifty  years  ago,  the  work  is  to-day  not  only  valuable,  but 
is  intensely  interesting  reading.  It  depicts  the  horrors  of  slavery,  and  this  is  done  in  a 
calm,  judicial  manner.  It  is  in  no  degree  sensational,  but  presents  the  facts  as  seen  or 
heard  from  creditable  witnesses,  and  is  invaluable  to  the  student  of  the  causes  of  the 
Civil  War. 

The  reader  who  cares  to  understand  the  American  Civil  War  should  read  the  narrative 
by  Frederick  Olmsted  entitled  "A  Journey  to  the  Seaboard  Slave  States"  (1856).  Mr. 
Olmsted's  volume  presents  as  interesting  a  picture  of  the  South  on  the  eve  of  its  great 
catastrophe  as  is  given  by  Arthur  Young  of  France  on  the  eve  of  its  revolution." — MOR- 
LEY'S  LIFE  OF  GLADSTONE,  Vol.  2,  p.  70. 

ULYSSES  S.  GRANT  AND  THE  PERIOD  OF  NATIONAL 
PRESERVATION  AND  RECONSTRUCTION 

By  WILLIAM  CONANT  CHURCH 

Late  Lieut-Colonel  U.  S.  A. 
No.  21  in  the  Heroes  of  the  Nations. 
Crown  8vo.     Fully  Illustrated.     Cloth,  $1.50.     Half  Leather,  $1.75. 

"  It  is  easy  to  see  that  the  author  was  on  terms  of  friendship  with  America's  greatest 
and  most  popular  commander.  .  .  .  Every  phase  of  Grant  s  career  is  touched  upon 
with  a  due  sense  of  proportion.  The  volume  is  well  equipped  with  portraits  and  maps 
of  battle-fields  and  strategic  positions." — The  Scotsman, 

ROBERT  E.  LEE  AND  THE  SOUTHERN  CONFEDERACY 

By   PROF.  HENRY  ALEXANDER  WHITE 
of  Washington  and  Lee  University. 

No.  22  in  the  Heroes  of  the  Nations. 

Crown  8vo.     Fully  illustrated.     Cloth,  $1.50.     Half  Leather,  $1.75. 

"  He  tells  the  story  of  the  General's  life  in  admirable  style.  He  is  intensely  earnest. 
He  is  interesting  from  first  to  last.  Every  line  shows  that  he  loved  the  hero  of  his 
work  in  life  and  reveres  the  memory  of  the  man  as  he  writes.  He  has  labored  long 
and  faithfully  to  gather  all  possible  information  and  make  judicious  use  of  the  materials 
accumulated.  He  writes  fluently  and  agreeably.  When  the  reader  ends  the  volume  it 
is  with  the  wish  that  it  had  been  much  longer." — N.  Y.  Mail  and  Express. 

Send  for  illustrated  catalogue  on  American  History. 
New  York    Q.    P.    PUTNAM'S   SONS      London 


WORKS  ON  THE  CIVIL  WAR 


THE  STORY  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

A  Concise  Account  of  the  War  in  the  United  States  of  America  between 
1861  and  1865. 

By  JOHN  CODMAN  ROPES,  LL.D. 

Author  of  "  The  Army  Under  Pope,"  etc. 

To  be  complete  in  four  octavo  volumes,  with  comprehensive  maps  and  battle  plans. 
Each  part  will  be  complete  in  itself  and  sold  separately. 

PART  I. —  Narrative  of  Events  to  the  Opening  of  the  Campaigns  of  1862. 
With  5  maps.  8°,  pp.  xiv  +  274,  $1.50. 

PART  II.—  The  Campaigns  of  1862.     With  13  maps.  8°,  pp.  489,  $2.50. 

"The  most  complete,  comprehensive,  and  interesting  account  of  the  Civil  War  which 
has  ever  been  published.  .  .  .  We  unhesitatingly  recommend  it  as  containing  a  wealth 
of  information  that  no  one  can  afford  to  be  deprived  of." — Neiv  Haven  Evening  Leader. 

PARTS  III.  and  IV.  to  be  completed  by  Col.  W.  R.  Livermore,  and  are 
in  active  preparation. 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CIVIL  WAR 

By  W.  BIRKBECK  WOOD,  M.A. 
Late  scholar  of  Worcester  College,  Oxford,  and 
MAJOR  J.  E.  EDWARDS,  R.E.,  D.A.Q.M.G. 
8vo.     With  maps  and  plans.    Net  $3.50. 
With  introduction  by  H.  Spencer  Wilkinson. 

The  subject  is  treated  mainly  from  a  strategical  standpoint.  The  political  and  dip 
lomatic  side  of  the  war  is  only  alluded  to  when  it  exercised  a  direct  influence  upon  the 
military  course  of  events.  The  naval  operations  are  dealt  with  in  a  separate  chapter,  and 
to  the  accounts  of  the  more  important  battles  are  added  appendices  emphasizing  the  chief 
points  of  controversy.  Stragetical  maps  illustrate  the  various  campaigns,  and  tactical 
plans  accompany  the  account  of  the  chief  battles. 

SLAVERY    AND   FOUR   YEARS   OF   WAR 

A  Political  History  of  Slavery  in  the  United  States,  together  with  a  nar 
rative  of  the  Campaigns  and  Battles  of  the  Civil  War  in  which  the  author 
took  part. 

By  JOSEPH  WARREN  KEIFER 

Brevet  Major-General  of  Volunteers,  ex-Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
U.  S.  A.,  and  Major-General  of  Volunteers,  Spanish  War. 

2  vols.,  8°,  $6.00. 

il  The  literature  of  the  Civil  War  is  already  voluminous,  but  such  a  narrative  of 
personal  experiences  as  General  Keifer  has  given  in  his  work  is  a  desirable  addition  to  a 
more  complete  knowledge  of  the  unfortunate  affair  in  its  many  phases.  The  author 
shows  a  commendable  fairness  in  his  treatment  of  the  principal  subject,  and  the  book 
deserves  a  most  favorable  reception  at  the  hands  of  the  public.  — Rochester  Herald. 

FROM  BULL  RUN  TO  CHANCELLORSVILLE 

The  Story  of  the  Sixteenth  New  York  Infantry,  together  with  Personal  Reminisences 
By  NEWTON  MARTIN  CURTIS 

Brevet  Major-General  U.  S.  Vols. 
8vo.     With  Portraits.     Net  $2.OO. 

General  Curtis's  volume  is  not  a  dry  military  history.     It  tells  Jthe^  sjtpry  of^the  part 
taken 
lorsvi 
the  w: 
and  many  a  good  story  is  told  of  men  and  events. 

Send  for  illustrated  catalogue  on  American  History. 


New  York     Q.    P.    PUTNAM'S   SONS     London 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(415)642-6233 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


SENT  ON  ILL 


JUl  1  7  1995 


**        U.C.  BERKELEY 

[MAY  2  1  1992      , 1 

-i    g?    m. 


APR  2  1  199?. 
iOh 


